- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5687 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAGHAVENDRA SHET, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O RATHNAKAR SHET, R/O 3RD CROSS, LAKSHMI NAGAR, SANTHEKATTE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA SHERVEGAR, R/O BEHIND SHREE RAM MANTAP HOTEL, SALIGRAMA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. DIVISION OFFICE, SHREE RAM ARCADE, OPP: HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI REP: BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARUDRA , ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. Y. ARUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.4.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.62/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 24th April 2014, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Udupi, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.62/2012, seeking enhancement of compensation. 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 that, on 25.10.2011, at about 7.30 p.m., the claimant was standing on the left side of the road near Santhekatte junction of Udupi Taluk. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-20-N-773, driven by its driver in a rash - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result, claimant sustained injuries. He took treatment as an inpatient in the hospital from 25.10.2011 to 30.10.2011 and had spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. The claimant was doing catering work and earning Rs.12,000/-per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant prayed for awarding of compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending car. Respondent No.1 though appeared before the Tribunal, has not filed the written statement. Respondent No.2-insurer filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claimant. It also denied its liability to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 12 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-12. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in-part and awarded the following amount of compensation : Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and agony 20,000/- Medical expenses 3,700/- Conveyance expenses 500/- Nourishment 1,000/- Loss of income 4,000/- Loss of amenities 10,000/- Total 39,200/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claimant had sustained injuries on his abdomen, face, right and left leg and other parts of the body and has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has not awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation on all the heads. Therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimant and awarded a just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 11. Following points arise for consideration : (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? (ii) What order? Point No.1 : 12. The fact of the accident is not seriously disputed. PW-1 is the claimant and in his evidence, he has stated about the fact of the accident. The Tribunal accepting the said evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The said fact is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. 13. The contention of the claimant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, is not fully acceptable. He has not sustained any grievous injuries, nor has he been examined by a doctor to confirm any permanent disability. Considering the amount of compensation awarded under other heads, the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.20,000/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 14. The Tribunal has exonerated the insurer from paying the compensation to the claimant on the ground that the driver of the offending car had no driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle as on the date of the accident. Undisputedly, the said car was a private car. Ex.R-2 - policy of insurance, does not disclose that it was a commercial vehicle. Prior to the accident, the driver had a light motor vehicle licence, that was in force till 26.01.2009 and subsequently, it was renewed. In Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a driver authorized to drive non-transport vehicle, can drive transport vehicle of the said class and in such cases, insurer is liable to pay compensation. 15. The respondent No.1 has produced the driving licence at Ex.R-3. The driving licence was renewed from 27.01.2004 to 26.01.2009. The date of the accident was 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 on 25.10.2011. Thereafter, on 08.12.2011, the driver got renewed the licence for further period from 08.12.2011 to 07.12.2016. Admittedly, as on the date of the accident, the driver had no driving licence. 16. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.G.Srinivasamurthy -vs- Habib Khathun2, has observed after referring to Section 15 of the M.V.Act that, if the application for renewal is made within thirty days after the date of expiry of the licence, the same shall be renewed from the date of its expiry. However, if the application is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. The above said provisions also show that the licensing authority has no power to refuse renewal of licence unless the application is filed beyond the period of five years from the date of expiry in view of the proviso to Sub-section (4) to Section 15. That when the application for renewal is more than five years after the 2 2002 ACJ 557 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act. Hence, the driver of offending vehicle was not disqualified to renew the licence. Under such circumstances, insurer cannot disown its liability to pay compensation. 17. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagappa @ Nagaraja and others -vs- Ravi Kupaluru and others, MFA.No.103680/2015 & connected matters, decided on 8th February 2019, referring to the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs- Swaran Singh and others3 and reiterating the very same findings, held that within a period of five years from the date of the expiry of the driving licence, if the driver is not disqualified from renewing the driving the vehicle, he 3 AIR 2004 SC 1531 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 is deemed to be having a driving licence if it is renewed subsequent to the accident. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned two judgments, it is deemed in the present case that the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and to pay compensation to the claimant. 18. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 24th April 2014, passed in MVC.No.62/2012, by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Udupi, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25452 MFA No. 5687 of 2014 iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The enhanced amount of compensation is meager, therefore, entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. vi) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38