- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25594 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. ASIF S/O. ABBUSALIYA DARUGAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: ISALAMPUR GALLI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.M KALWAD, ADV) AND: 1. JAGADISH S/O PUTTAPPA SANNAMANI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O: MAIN ROAD ISHWAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., # 184/2B, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, P.J. EXTENSION DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI ADV FOR R1, SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.218/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:06:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), in MVC No.218/2006 dated 31.10.2012. 2. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner is a minor, who met with an accident on 15.11.2005 and sustained grievous injuries and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.27/K.6944. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries and took treatment from 19.11.2005 to 29.11.2005 and his parents have spent a huge amount towards his medical expenses. It is contended that the petitioner is unable to do day-to-day work because of the injuries sustained by him. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition through the natural guardian/grandmother- Aminabi. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 3. Respondent No.1-owner of the motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that he was holding a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle. It is contended that respondent No.2 is the insurer of the motorcycle, which is so insured with respondent No.2, hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and there is a violation of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 6. The petitioner to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1. To prove the disability, he examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P-1 to P- 21. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 was examined as RW.2, the official of respondent No.2, insurance company was examined as RW-1, one witness was examined as RW-3 and marked 11 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-11. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition with costs and dismissed the claim petition against respondent No.2. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.51,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No.1 was directed to deposit the compensation amount within thirty days from the date of the order. 8. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also the liability, has filed this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. To prove that he has suffered permanent disability, examined the Doctor as PW.2, who has opined that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 30% to the whole body but the Tribunal has taken the disability at 10% which is on the lower side. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun v. The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited and another1. He submitted that, if the disability to the whole body is taken at 30%, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- but the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.51,200/-. He also submitted that the rider of the motorcycle was possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and 1 AIR 2014 SC 736 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.2. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and hence the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against it. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the rider of the motorcycle was possessing a valid and effective driving licence and also submitted that, as the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident, the insurance company is liable to indemnify respondent No.1. Hence, she prays to dispose of the appeal. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point that arises for consideration is regarding quantum of the compensation and the liability. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 15. The occurrence of the accident and the petitioner sustaining the injury in the said accident is not in dispute. The petitioner, to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-5. The Tribunal, considering Ex.P-5, has rightly answered issue No.1 in the affirmative. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. 16. The 2nd respondent-insurance company has taken a defence that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Respondent No.2 has issued a notice to respondent No.1 calling upon respondent No.1 to furnish the driving licence of the rider of the motorcycle. Respondent No.1 did not reply to the notice issued by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has produced the xerox copy of the driving licence marked as Ex.R-7. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW-2. Respondent No.1 has produced the license possessed by him, but he has not produced the license of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 rider of the motorcycle. Thus, the vehicle was ridden by an unauthorised person. Thus, there is a violation of the policy conditions. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.2 on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. 17. Insofar as the quantum is concerned: The petitioner had sustained grievous injury to his right leg. To prove the disability, the petitioner has examined the Doctor as PW.2, who is an orthopaedic surgeon in OM Hospital, Ranebennur. He has deposed that he has issued the physical disability certificate as per Ex.P-17 and he has opined that the petitioner had sustained 30% permanent physical disability to his right lower limb. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW.2, has assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body and awarded compensation of Rs.51,200/-. PW-2 was not the treated Doctor, but he has issued the disability certificate. The Tribunal committed an error in assessing the disability of 10% which is on the lower side. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 This Court re-assess the permanent disability at 15% to the whole body and re-assess the compensation as follows: Sl. No. HEADS Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Compensation awarded by this Court Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 15,000/- 30,000/- 2 Medical expenses 6,200/- 6,200/- 3 Towards incidental and attendant charges etc 10,000/- 25,000/- 4 Disability 20,000/- 1,50,000/- 5 Loss of amenities 25,000/- TOTAL 51,200/- 2,36,200/- Enhancement 1,85,000/- 18. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,36,200/- as against Rs.51,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Insofar as liability is concerned: As observed above, there is a violation of the policy conditions. However, as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company, the insurance company is liable to indemnify respondent No.1. Thus, respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount and then recover the same from owner/rider. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9537 MFA No. 25594 of 2012 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur, in MVC No.218/2006, is modified. iii. The petitioner is entitled to re-assessed compensation of Rs.2,36,200/- with an interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition, till realisation of the amount. iv. Respondent No.2-insurance company, is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereafter recover the same from respondent No.1 owner/rider by due process of law. Registry to return the TCR to the Tribunal concerned forthwith. Draw an award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB