- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23708 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. G.S.SRIKANT @ SRIKANT S/O SANGAPPA GANIGER @ MALLAPUR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, R/O. INAM YARAGOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL AND DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVS) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S VIJAYANANDA ROAD LINES LTD., (OWNER OF THE VRL BUS NO.KA/25/A-7471) 1ST FLOOR, GIRIRAJ ANNEXE CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD, HUBBALLI- 29, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. DEEPA S. RAO W/O SRI M.S. RAO (OWNER OF BUS NO.KA.01/B-5772) MANJUNATH ROAD LINES, NO.515, 8TH BLOCK, OPP. POST OFFICE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.01 11:35:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV FOR R1 SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV FOR R2, SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADV FOR R3 AND SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADV FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15-07-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.111/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-II, BAGALKOT, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and award dated 15.07.2013 passed in MVC No.111 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bagalkot. 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 17.12.2008 at about 02.25 a.m., the appellant was travelling in the Manjunath Road Lines Bus, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 bearing registration No.KA.01-B.5772 from Bengaluru to Bagalkot. The driver of the bus was driving slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. When the said bus came near Chikkagondanahalli Gate on National Highway-13, Hospet-Chidradurga Road, a VRL bus bearing registration No.KA.25-A.7471 came from the opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the bus in which the petitioner was travelling. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chitradurga, where he took first aid treatment, and thereafter, he was referred to Kanthi Nursing Hospital, Bagalkot. He was admitted as an inpatient for two days. He had incurred huge medical expenses. The appellant was hale and healthy before the accident. 4. It is stated that, as on the date of the accident, the appellant was aged about 36 years, and due to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 injuries sustained by him, he has become permanently physically disabled. Hence, the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹4,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the accident till its complete realisation. 5. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed written statements separately. Respondent No.3 remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte. 6. Respondent No.1—Owner of the VRL bus filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition, except admitting that it is the owner of the VRL bus bearing registration No.KA.25-A.7471, which was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. It is contended that the driver of the VRL bus was possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. There was no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 negligence on the part of the driver of the VRL bus. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition against respondent No.1. 7. Respondent No.2—Insurer of VRL bus filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the VRL bus was insured with them. It is contended that, due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Manjunath Road Lines bus bearing registration No.KA.01-B.5772, the accident had occurred. Further, it is contended that the driver of the VRL bus bearing registration No. KA.25-A.7471 was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. There is a violation of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. 8. Respondent No.4 filed a written statement contending that, the Manjunath Road Lines bus bearing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 registration No.KA.01-B.5772 was insured with respondent No.4 and it is contended that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the VRL bus. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Manjunath Road Lines and it is contended that the driver of the VRL bus bearing registration No.KA.25-A.7471 was not having a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.4. 9. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 10. The appellant to prove the claim petition averments, examined himself before the Tribunal as PW-1 and to prove the disability, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. 11. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 12. Respondent No.4 marked a document as Ex.R-1 with the consent of the parties. 13. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on assessment of Verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition with costs, vide judgment dated 15.07.2013. 14. The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 15. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the appellant met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital and thereafter, he was admitted to Kanthi Nursing Home at Bagalkot. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 17. To prove that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries, he has produced ten documents. Ex.P-8 is the OPD chit and X-ray Report and Ex.P-9 is the Disability Certificate. He also submits that he has examined the doctor who treated him as PW-2. 18. The Tribunal, without considering the documents at Ex.P-8 and P-9 and the evidence of PW-2 has recorded its finding that the petitioner has not sustained any injuries in the accident, and except producing the prescription and medical bills, he has not produced the Wound Certificate. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned judgment and prays to dismiss the appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 20. Perused the records. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 21. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellant proves that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the records? (ii) What order? 22. Point No.1: The appellant was travelling in the Manjunath Road Lines bus bearing Registration No.KA.01-B.5772 on 17.12.2008 and the said bus met with an accident. The VRL Bus bearing registration No.KA.25-A.7471 came from the opposite side high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bus in which the appellant was travelling and due to the impact, the appellant sustained injuries. 23. To establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the VRL bus, the appellant produced certified copies of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 First Information Report, marked as Ex.P3 and Charge-Sheet, marked as Ex.P-6. These documents disclose that the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the VRL bus. 24. From a perusal of Ex.P-6, it is sufficient to hold that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the VRL bus. Thus, the appellant has proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the VRL bus. 25. The appellant contended that he had sustained grievous injuries and was initially admitted to the Government Hospital, Bagalkot and thereafter, he was shifted and got admitted at Kanthi Nursing Home, Bhagalkot. 26. To prove that the appellant was admitted in Kanthi Nursing Home, the doctor, who treated the appellant was examined as PW-2, and PW-2 has deposed that - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 the appellant met with a road traffic accident on 17.12.2008 near Chitradurga and the appellant was initially treated at Government Hospital, Chitradurga and on the next day, the appellant came to their hospital for treatment. He treated the appellant conservatively for the injuries sustained by him and the appellant again met PW-2 for assessment of disability on 03.03.2013. On clinical and radiological examination, it was observed by him that the appellant had mal-united fracture of the greater tuberosity of the left humeurus; restriction of the left shoulder joint by 40% and degenerative joint disease (post traumatic) of the left shoulder. PW-2 had opined that the petitioner has permanent physical disability of 12 percent to the whole body and he has also produced the OPD chit, X-ray report, marked as Ex.P- 8 and Disability Certificate as Ex.P-9. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 27. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the course of the cross-examination of PW-2, except denying the suggestions made to the witness. 28. PW-2/doctor was examined to prove that the appellant has suffered from physical disability, the Tribunal, without considering the documents at Exs.P- 8 and P-9 and evidence of PW-2, has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. 29. From the perusal of Exs.P-8 and 9 and the evidence of PW-2, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant had suffered permanent physical disability of about 12% to the whole body. Thus, it is established that the appellant had suffered physical disability in the road traffic accident that occurred on 17.12.2008. 30. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of ₹2,00,000/-. 31. The learned counsel for respondent No.2—insurer of the VRL bus submits that respondent No.4—insurer of Manjunath Road Lines bus has not produced any Driving License of its driver. Hence, the burden is on respondent No.4 to establish that the driver of the bus did not have a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. 32. Admittedly, the officials of respondent No.2 have not entered the witness box and have not denied the aspect that the driver of the Manjunath Road Lines bus possessing a valid driving license. 33. From the perusal of the Charge-Sheet, it discloses that the Charge-Sheet was filed against the driver of the VRL bus. Further, it is pertinent to note that the charge-sheet was not filed on the ground that the driver did not have an effective driving license, as per - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not hold any water. 34. As far as liability to pay the compensation is concerned, respondent No.1 is the owner of the VRL bus and respondent No.2 is its insurer. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify respondent No.1. As such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the appellant. 35. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 under consideration in the affirmative. 36. Point No.2: In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First appeal is allowed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 (ii) The judgment and award dated 15.07.2013 passed in MVC No.111 of 2012 by the learned MACT-II, Bagalkot, is set aside. The claim petition is allowed. (iii) The appellant is entitled to a global compensation of ₹2,00,000/- without any interest. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellant. (v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vi) On deposit of the said compensation amount by respondent No.2, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount. (vii) The Tribunal is directed to release the entire compensation amount in favour - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9293 MFA No. 23708 of 2013 of the appellant on proper identification. (viii) In default, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8% per annum after the expiry of two months from the date of this judgment, till realisation of the entire compensation amount. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK Ct: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54