- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5566 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7691 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.5566/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SUJITH KUMAR SHETTY S/O DEJU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT AYARAGUTTHU JARKALA MUNDLI VILLAGE AND POST KARKALA TALUK-574101 UDUPI DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SEETHARAM GANIGA S/O LATE SHEENA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HERGALLU VILLAGE HOUSE CHARA VILLAGE AND POST KARKALA-576112 UDUPI DISTRICT Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 2. THE ABHARANA MOTORS PVT. LTD (AUTHORIZED DEALERS FOR MARUTHI VEHICLES AND AUTHORIZED INSURER FOR VEHICLES) NH 66, NITTURU, UDUPI-576103 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER UDUPI-576101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.M. ANFAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI K. SRIDHARA ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-2 - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.882/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & AMACT, KARKALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,13,310/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 7691/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SRI SEETHARAMA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SHEENA GANIGA R/O HERGALLU HOUSE CHARA VILLAGE AND POST KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-572101 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S.M. ANFAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 AND: 1. SRI SUJITH KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O DEJU SHETTY R/O AYARAGUTTHU JARKALA MUNDLI VILLAGE AND POST KARKALA TALUK-573011 2. THE ABHARAN MOTORS PVT. LTD., (AUTHORISED DEALERS FOR MARUTHI VEHICLES & AUTHORISED INSURER FOR VEHICLES) N.H.66, NITTUR, UDUPI-576103 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER UDUPI-572103 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI K. SRIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-2 - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.882/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) MFA No.5566/2016 is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-N-8418 challenging the judgment and award dated 18.04.2016 passed in MVC No.882/2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala (for short 'the Tribunal') on the ground of liability and quantum. Whereas, MFA No.7691/2016 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: On 04.06.2014 at 1.45 p.m., the claimant was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-20-EB-1031 from Shirlalu to Jarkala Mundli and when he reached near Ponnejaru - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 of Jarkala Mundli, a Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-N-8418 came from Jarkala Mundli side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was taken to City Nursing Home, Karkala and was admitted as inpatient. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.68 produced on behalf of the claimant as well as the oral evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents produced on their behalf as per Exs.R.1 to R.13 as also the documents marked on behalf of the Court as per Exs.C.1 to C.4, has partly allowed the claim petition awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,13,310/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the claimant have filed these appeals. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 5. Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the appellant-owner in MFA No.5566/2016 vehemently contended that the vehicle of the appellant was insured with respondent No.3-National Insurance Company Limited. Respondent No.2 is the agent of respondent No.3. Ex.R.10 is the Outsourcing Agreement by which, respondent No.3 authorised respondent No.2 to be a Service Provider and to issue policy by collecting the premium. In this regard, respondent No.2 has issued the receipt for the amount towards renewal of policy dated 02.6.2014 (Ex.R.4). Ex.R.10 is the Outsourcing Agreement by which the liability of the insurance company to settle the claim is continued, but the Tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the said aspect. The Tribunal has proceeded in a technical manner by stating that the vehicle was not inspected before renewal of the policy. The acceptance of the amount and the issuance of the receipt towards renewal of the policy is a prima facie binding on the insurance company and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable to pay the award amount is erroneous. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 6. Sri S.M. Anfal, learned counsel for Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MFA No.7691/2016 vehemently contended that the Tribunal awarded meager compensation by considering the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/-. In fact, as per the Chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, for the accident of the year 2014, the notional income would be Rs.8,500/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has not granted fair and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. The Tribunal has also not granted any compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, the following points would arise for our consideration in these appeals: "1. Whether the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-N-8418 proves that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 insurance policy was renewed as on the date of the accident? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side?" 8. To substantiate the contention that the insurance policy was renewed as on the date of the accident, the owner of the vehicle examined himself as R.W.1 and also got examined the insurance agent as R.W.2 and relied upon the documents as per Exs.R.1 to R.13. 9. From perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was lapsed on 01.06.2014. The accident occurred on 04.06.2014. No policy can be issued after the lapse of the earlier policy unless and until the vehicle is inspected and inspection report is obtained. Ex.R.5 clearly demonstrates that the offending vehicle was inspected on 05.06.2014 and till then, the owner of the vehicle has not produced his vehicle for inspection. In the meanwhile, the accident occurred on 04.06.2014 and on the same day, as per Ex.P.3-Spot Mahazar, the offending vehicle was seized from the accident spot by the Investigating Officer - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 and therefore, there was no scope for inspecting the vehicle on 05.06.2014. Thus, no policy was issued or renewed after 01.06.2014. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-N-8418 is liable to pay the compensation amount and there is no merit in the contention of the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, MFA No.5566/2016 is dismissed. 10. Insofar as MFA No.7691/2016 is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month. Prior to the accident, the claimant was doing soft drinks business and was also doing sofa set making work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the claimant has not produced any document in proof of his income. Therefore, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we take the notional income of the claimant at Rs.8,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2014. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased at 49 years and the disability at 7% and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 applied the multiplier of 13, which is fair and reasonable. Thus, the loss of future income is reassessed as under: 8500x12x13x7%=92,820/- 11. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. Considering the fact that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 7 days, he must have taken rest at least for one month. Hence, we grant a sum of Rs.8,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period. 12. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and agony, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.10,000/- towards rest, nourishment and attendant charges, Rs.79,990/- towards medical expenses and Rs.22,800/- towards conveyance, which are fair and reasonable and therefore, no interference is called for. 13. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled for the following compensation: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 Pain and agony Rs. 25,000/- Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000/- Rest, nourishment and attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 79,990/- Conveyance Rs. 22,800/- Loss of future income Rs. 92,820/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 8,500/- Total Rs. 2,49,110/- Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,13,310/- Enhanced compensation Rs. 35,800/- 14. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.5566/2016 is dismissed. (ii) MFA No.7691/2016 is allowed in part. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 (iii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The appellant/claimant in MFA No.7691/2016 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,49,110/- as against Rs.2,13,310/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs.35,800/- from the date of claim petition till the date of its realisation. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (v) Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. (vi) Draw the modified award accordingly. (vii) No order as to costs. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33831-DB MFA No. 5566 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7691 of 2016 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28