- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3330 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: BABU SHETTY S/O SOMAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT # 4-345, KONDANDA GUTHU, KONDANA, KOTTEKAR MANGALURU D.K, DISTRICT-575 022 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MOHAMMED ALI P S/O ABUBAKKAR MAJOR R/AT POIDEL HOUSE, BELMA VILLAGE AND POST, BADIYAR, DERALAKATTE, MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-575 018 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., RAM BHAVAN COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT-575003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-MOHAMMED ALI P SERVED) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT., PRAYING TO MODIFY/SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 DATED 08.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1326/2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-I D.K.MANGALURU AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 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 dismissal of the claim petition in MVC.No.1326/2020 dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I, D.K. Mangaluru, the claimant is before this Court. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 08.05.2020 at about 04.00 p.m. when he was going on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-19-HB-6200 from Beeri side towards Deralakatte, near Madoor Sharada Nagar and an auto rickshaw bearing No.KA- 19-D-1323 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he sustained the grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to treatment as an outpatient in Justice K.S. Hegde - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 Charitable Hospital and thereafter he was in the hospital as an inpatient from 12.05.2020 to 20.05.2020 and spent more than Rs.1,30,000/- towards his medical expenses and also requires further amount for his future medical expenses. 3. In support of the case of the claimant, he has examined himself as PW.1 and another eyewitness as PW.2 and Ex.P1 to P12 are marked. On behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company, RW.1 is examined and Exhibits R1 and R2 are marked i.e., the insurance policy and the extract of driving licence. 4. The Insurance Company has filed its objections and the Insurance Company do not dispute the accident. However, according to them, the driver of the opposite vehicle is not having a valid driving license. In those circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal by order impugned dismissed the petition on the grounds that the accident had taken place on 08.05.2020 and the medical records are pertaining to 12.05.2020 and even the FIR was registered thereafter. As there is a delay in giving the complaint, the evidence of PW.2 alleged to be an eyewitness - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 was not considered because he has failed to state about the other persons who were present at the time of accident and his name is also not shown in the medical records that he is the one who has taken the injured to the hospital. The Tribunal when it comes to the compensation arrived at an amount of Rs.90,000/- and dismissed the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that when the Insurance Company itself is not disputing about the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the said aspect. It is submitted that the Tribunal without any basis has gone to the said issue. It is submitted that without any basis the evidence of PW.2 is disbelieved. Further, the amount of compensation that is determined by the Tribunal is also not a reasonable compensation and the claim petition ought to have been allowed and ought to have granted a reasonable compensation. 6. Learned counsel appearing to the Respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition. It is submitted that when he was admitted in Justice K.S Hegde Memorial Hospital on the same - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 day, then there is no scrap of paper is placed before the Court to show that he was admitted. Then all the medical documents pertain to 12.05.2020. The Tribunal had rightly considered this and rightly held that they have not established the involvement of the vehicle. Further, it is submitted that as on the day the accident had taken place, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a driving licence as the same expired long back. Even on that count also, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere. 7. Having heard learned counsels on either side, perused the materials on record. The Tribunal has to frame the issues basing on the pleadings of the parties. Here in this case, it is the case of the claimant that the accident had taken place on 08.05.2020 and the respondent/Insurance Company had filed their objections. They have not disputed the involvement of the vehicle or the accident that had taken place. In that case, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the said aspect. The Tribunal has to look into whether the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 offending vehicle. If that issue has to be looked into, PW.2 is examined and the police records also supports the case of the claimant that the accident had taken place and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the issue with regard to whether the accident had taken place or not or the delay in giving the complaint will not go to the root of the matter and there is material to show that the accident had taken place on 08.05.2020. The next aspect is considering the police records, there is negligence on the part of the driver of the opposite vehicle and PW.2 evidence also supports the same. Hence, the negligence is fastened on to the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. When it comes to the compensation, he has sustained one grievous injury. Hence, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is granted under the head pain and sufferings. Considering the hospitalisation, transport, nourishment and attendant charges, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.8,000/-. The accident had occurred in the year 2020 and considering the notional income at Rs.14,500/- for 3 months an amount of Rs.43,500/-(Rs.14,500x3) is granted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 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 ANOTHER1, 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 Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and Suffering : Rs. 00/- 40,000/- 2. Transportaion, nourishment and attendant charges : Rs. 00/- 8,000/- 3. Loss of income : Rs. 00/- 43,500/- 4. Legal Expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 00/- 1,01,500/- 11. Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,01,500/-. 12. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by granting compensation of an amount of Rs.1,01,500/-. 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31258 MFA No. 3330 of 2022 13. Coming to the aspect of the driving license, as the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a driving license as on the date of the accident, the principle of Pay and Recover applies and the Insurance Company shall pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. iii. 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. iv. No costs. v. All Pending I.As in the appeal, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24