- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22165 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LASUMAKKA @ LAKSHMAKKA W/O BHEEMAPPA, AGED 57 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,BALLARI TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH SAMY B.M. S/O BASALINGAIAH AGED MAJOR, OWNER OF THE AUTO BEARING REG. NO. KA-16/A-9670, R/O. CHIKKERAHALLI VILALGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., K.C.ROAD, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DTD:13/03/2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.692/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:07:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Bellary, in MVC No.692/2011 vide order dated 13.03.2012. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner met with an accident on 26.7.2010 which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-16/A- 9670. The petitioner was travelling in the said auto as a paid passenger. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the autorickshaw. The petitioner spent a huge amount towards medical treatment and suffered permanent disability. Hence, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel but did not file a statement of objections. 4. Respondent No.3-Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, and the vehicle was plying outside the permitted limit. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to prove the contents of the claim petition, examined herself as PW.1 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 67 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-67. On the other hand, an official of the respondent No.3- insurance company was examined as RW.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs.R-1 to R3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The claim petition was dismissed against the insurance company and directed the owner and the driver of the autorickshaw were held jointly and severally liable and they were directed to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that, the accident is of the year 2010, hence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority but - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 on the contrary, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/ per month which is on the lower side. He also submits that the compensation under other heads is on the lower side. Hence, he submits that as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy was in force. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have passed an order directing the insurance company to pay compensation and recover the same by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, but the Tribunal has committed an error in directing the owner and driver to deposit the compensation amount. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license and moreover, the vehicle was plying outside the permitted limit. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions, and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that arises for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 14. There is no dispute that the petitioner has met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw. To prove that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability, the petitioner examined the Doctor as PW.2, who has deposed that he has examined the petitioner and issued a disability certificate marked as Ex.P-8. He has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 30-35%. It is contended that the petitioner was a coolie and was earning Rs.150/- per day. To substantiate the income of the petitioner, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal should have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 taken the notional income, Rs.5,500/- per month, as the accident is of the year 2010. The income of Rs.3,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As the petitioner is aged 60 years, 10% future prospects have to be added to the notional income of Rs.5,500/-, which comes to Rs.6,050/- per month. Considering, the evidence of PW.2 and the medical records, this Court re-assess the compensation as follows: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Compensation awarded by this Court Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 60,000/- 2 Loss of amenities 20,000/- 30,000/- 3 Medical expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 4 Conveyance charges 2,000/- 5,000/- 5 Loss of income during the laid up period for 4 months 9,000/- 24,200/- 6 Loss of future income (6050x12x9x12/100) 48,600/- 78,408/- 7 Attendant charges 4,500/- 20,000/- 8 Extra nourishment 2,250/- 10,000/- TOTAL 1,31,150/- rounded of to 1,31,000/- 2,42,608/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 15. The petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,42,608/- as against Rs.1,31,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,11,608/- Though, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent insurance company, the owner of the vehicle has committed a breach of policy conditions, as the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person, who was not possessing a valid and effective driving license and moreover, the vehicle was plying outside the permitted limit. Though, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company, admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. Hence, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner by paying the compensation to the petitioner and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No.1 herein. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed in part. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9635 MFA No. 22165 of 2013 ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The petitioner is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,11,608/- with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the realisation of the amount. iii. Respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. The Registry is to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal concerned. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB