- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3065 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: YOGARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O KUMARAIAH, R/O KUNDURU HOBLI, R/O KUNDURAVALLI VILLAGE, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY MS.PAVANA B.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NINGARAJU G.L., AGED ABOUT MAJOR S/O NOT KNOW TO APPELLANT, R/O GANGARA VILLAGE, KUNDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 2. THE NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS NEAREST DIVISIONAL MANAGER MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, OLD BUS STAND, HASSAN TOWN HASSAN …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.V.SHRIHARI NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1460/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, 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: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.1460/2018 dated 19.01.2022 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan, whereby the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle. The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 09.06.2018 at about 11.30 a.m., along with his father-in-law while he was proceeding on a two wheeler, the opposite vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler and the claimant had sustained injuries. As per the evidence of the doctor, he had sustained disability to the limb at 29.82% and the Tribunal had taken the disability at 9% and also - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 considering the income at an amount of Rs.11,000/- had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads Rs. Compensation awarded 1. Towards pain and sufferings : Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 3,25,000/- 3. Towards attendant charges, nourishment of food and conveyance : Rs. 20,000/- 4. Towards discomfort and loss of amenities : Rs. 15,000/- 5. Loss of earnings during laid up period : Rs. 20,000/- 6. Loss of future income : Rs. 2,09,932/- Total : 6,39,932/- 3. When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal had fixed the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had observed and had held that the vehicle is a light goods vehicle, but in the decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of A. Sandhya Sudhakaran and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company and another1, it was treated as a light motor vehicle as this is a goods vehicle and as the driver was not having a driving licence to drive a goods vehicle as such the insurance company is not 1 2015 ACJ 852 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 liable to pay the compensation and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. When it comes to the liability, she had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance company Ltd.2 and submits that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 5. This matter came up on 22.08.2025, both the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent/owner of the vehicle were present and there was no representation on behalf of the Insurance Company and this Court had directed the matter to be listed as “part heard” on 30.08.2025 and also observed that if there is no representation on behalf of the Insurance Company on that day orders will be passed on the merits of it. Today, when the matter came up, there is no representation on behalf of the Insurance Company. Hence, 2 (2017) 14 SCC 663 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 this Court is proceeding to dispose of the matter on the merits of it. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ owner of the offending vehicle submits that the Tribunal had failed to consider the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan's case referred supra applies to the facts of this case and the Insurance Company alone is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The reason on which the Tribunal had fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle is that it is a transport vehicle and driver is not having a license to drive the non-transport vehicle. There is no dispute about the fact that the weight of the vehicle is below 7,500 kg. In those circumstances, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan's case referred supra applies to the facts of the case and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 8. Then coming to the compensation, the claimant had sustained two crush injuries and the Tribunal had granted an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Considering the injuries the claimant had sustained, this Court under the head of pain and sufferings granting an amount of Rs.60,000/-. Then coming to the medical expenses, the Tribunal had rightly considered and granted an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- and this Court is not interfering with the same. Even towards the attendant and nourishment charges also based on the fact that he was in hospital for 20 days, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is already granted and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Then coming to the loss of amenities, as per the doctor, the claimant had sustained 29.82% disability to the limb. Hence, it can be taken as 10% to the whole body. Considering the same, under the head of loss of amenities this Court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/- . Then coming to the loss of income during the laid up period, this is the accident of the year 2018, considering the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority, this Court is taking the income at Rs.12,500/- per month and granting an amount of Rs.37,500/- (12,500X3) towards loss of income during the laid up period. Coming to the loss of future income this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 Court is granting an amount of (12500X12X16X10/100)=Rs.2,40,000/-. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER3, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. 10. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Rs. Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Towards pain and sufferings : Rs. 50,000/- 60,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 3,25,000/- 3,25,000/- 3. Towards attendant charges, nourishment of food and conveyance : Rs. 20,000/- 20,000/- 4. Towards discomfort and loss of amenities : Rs. 15,000/- 20,000/- 5. Loss of earnings : Rs. 20,000/- 37,500/- 3 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 during laid up period 6. Loss of future income : Rs. 2,09,932/- 2,40,000/- 7. Legal expenses : Rs. - 10,000/- Total : Rs. 6,39,932/- 7,12,500/- Enhanced amount : Rs. 72,568/- 11. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.7,12,500/-. 12. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.6,39,932/- to Rs.7,12,500/- and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. iv) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34111 MFA No. 3065 of 2022 v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay vi) No costs. vii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2