- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5035 OF 2021 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3995 OF 2018 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 5035/2021: BETWEEN: MAHADEVA S/O BALLARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT C/O SIDDARAMAIAH SUGAR TOWN POST MANDYA - 571 401. …APPELLANT (BY MS. SWATI G., HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE) AND: SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA DEAD BY HIS LR'S R1 TO R3 1) JAYASHEELA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O KONANAHALLI MANDYA TALUK. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 2. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. UMESHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS L.R.2 AND 3 ARE SONS OF LATE SHIVALINGAIAH R/O KEELARA VILLAGE KEREGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER (LEGAL) UNIVERSAL SAMPO INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE NO.201-208, CRYSTAL PLAZA OPP: INFINITY HALL LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1, R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.225/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.3995/2018: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGISTERED OFFICE NO.201-208, CITY PLAZA, OPPOSITE INFINITY HALL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400058. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD PLOT NO.EL94, T.T.C INDUSTRIAL AREA MIDC, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI-4700701. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHADEVA S/O BALLARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O C/O SIDDARAMAIAH SURAR TOWN POST, MANDYA-571404. 2. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS OF R2 2(A) SMT. JAYASHEELA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O KONANAHALLI MANDYA TALUK-571 404. 2(B) RAMESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2(C) UMESHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS LRS OF 2(B AND C) ARE SONS OF LATE SHIVALINGAIAH R/O KEELARA VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 404. ...RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SWATI G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-2(A), 2(B) AND 2(C) ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.225/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,84,094/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. ON AMOUNT OF RS.9,84,094/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3995/2018 is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Mandya (for short, "The Tribunal"), in MVC.No.225/2011 dated 07.11.2016 on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation awarded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 by the Tribunal, whereas, MFA.No.5035/2021 is filed by the appellant - claimant for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.11.2010 at about 9.15 p.m., when the petitioner was walking towards 'My Sugar Kalayana Mantapa' on the left side of the road, near Sugar town playground, Mandya, a Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-11-T-9574/9575 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against him, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. As on the date of accident appellant was aged 40 years, he was an agriculturist and also involved in milk vending business. He was earning around Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 3. Heard Sri B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty H., learned counsel for the claimant, and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in MFA.No.3995 of 2018 and respondent No.4 in MFA.No.5035 of 2021, has contended that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle, who was not possessing a valid and effective Driving Licence drove the vehicle in question. The owner of the offending vehicle also did not have a valid permit to drive the vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has granted high and exorbitant compensation under all conventional heads. The interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, which has to be reduced to 6% per annum. Further, the Tribunal has considered the disability of 42% without any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 basis, same has to be reduced. Thus, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 5. Per contra, Ms. Swati G. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant in MFA. No.5035 of 2021 and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in MFA.No.3995 of 2018 vehemently contended that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The claimant has sustained permanent disability of 50% to the whole body, but the Tribunal has granted 42%, which is on lower side. The Tribunal has not granted fair and reasonable compensation under other conventional heads. Hence, she prayed to allow her appeal. 6. We have perused the impugned judgment and award, as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties. The points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are: 1. Whether the appellant - Insurance Company proved that the owner of the offending vehicle has breached the policy - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 conditions and the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid Driving Licence? Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it calls for enhancement or reduction? 7. To substantiate the claim, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. In support of the contention of the claimant, he relied upon Exs.P1 to P19 and also corroborated the oral testimony of PW.2 - Dr. Nithyananda Rao. On behalf of respondents, RW1 - Ramesh was examined and documents were got marked as per Exs.R1 to R5. 8. Insofar as liability is concerned, the Insurance Company has taken the contention that the driver of the Tractor-Trailer did not have a valid and effective driving License to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 Thereby, the claimant has violated the provisions of Sections 5 and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the instant case, the owner of the Tractor-Trailer has not placed any documents to substantiate that the driver of the Tractor-Trailer possessed a valid Driving Licence as on the date of accident. Hence, he has violated the policy condition, but the Tribunal considered the oral and documentary evidence and saddled the liability on the Insurance Company at 80% and the remaining 20% on the owner of the Tractor-Trailer, which is contrary to the principles of 'pay and recovery' rendered in the decision in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297. Firstly, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the entire liability is saddled upon Insurance Company. 9. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 Rs.1,30,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings', Rs.3,51,694/- towards 'medical expenses' and Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'future medical expenses', which is fair and reasonable. 10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,150/- towards 'conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and other incidental expenses', which is on lower side. We are granting a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which is fair and reasonable. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid down period'. The accident is of the year 2010. Taking note of the Circular issued by the 'Karnataka State Legal Services Authority' and 'High Court Legal Services Committee', the notional income of the claimant is Rs.5,500/-. We deem it appropriate to award Rs.27,500/- (5500 x 5), which is fair and reasonable. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'discomfort, inconvenience and loss of future amenities', which is on lower side. The claimant has taken treatment for a period of 42 days as inpatient. Considering the period of hospitalization and nature of injuries sustained and the nature of disability, we are awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- globally, under the head 'discomfort, inconvenience and loss of future amenities'. 13. Insofar as 'loss of future income due to permanent disability' is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,25,250/-, considering the notional income at Rs.3,750/- and disability at 42% and future prospects at 50%. 14. Insofar as disability is concerned, the Doctor assessed the disability of 12.5% to his lower limb, 30% to his upper limb and around 42.15% to the whole body, but the Tribunal has considered the permanent disability at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 42% without any basis, which is contrary to the law. Hence, we are reducing the disability at 15%, which is fair and reasonable one. 15. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the claimant at Rs.3,750/-. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the claimant is not entitled for future prospects, as his disability assessed is within 20% and also proper multiplier applicable is '15'. Hence, the loss of future income is reassessed as under: 5500 x 12 x 15 x 15% = Rs.1,48,500/- 16. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation as under: HEADS Rs. 1 Towards pain and sufferings 1,30,000.00 2 Towards medical expenses 3,51,694.00 3 Towards future medical expenses 1,00,000.00 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 4 Towards conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and towards other incidental expenses 50,000.00 5 Towards loss of income during laid down period 27,500.00 6 Towards loss of income due to permanent disability 1,48,500.00 7 Towards discomfort, inconvenience and loss of future amenities 1,00,000.00 Total 9,07,694.00 17. In all, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,07,694/- as against Rs.10,84,094/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for reduced compensation of Rs.1,76,400/-. 18. In the result, we pass the following: O R D E R i. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3995 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed-in-part. ii. MFA. No.5035 of 2021 filed by the appellant - claimant is allowed-in-part. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for reduced compensation of Rs. 9,07,694/- as against Rs.10,84,094/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of its realisation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs. 1,76,400/- iv. The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. vi. Draw a modified award accordingly. vii. No order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35014-DB MFA No. 5035 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3995 of 2018 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 AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29