- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5548/2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR MOHAMMED RAFIQ, S/O ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KUTHAR PADAVU, SANTHOSH NAGARA, MUNNUR VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK PIN-575 004. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR SHARATH KUMAR, S/O CHENNAYA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT 20-106, NEAR SEBASTINE CHURCH, KRISHNA NAGARA, PERMANNUR, MANGALORE TALUK, PIN-575004. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., II FLOOR, RRASIK CHAMBER. OPP. CENTRAL MARKET, MANGALORE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER PIN-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K RANJAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. M.S. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.76/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K., 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 23.04.2014 passed in MVC No.76/2012, by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Mangalore, D.K., for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- before but the tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 amount of Rs.87,429/- with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition, till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred in which it is contended that the injured/claimant, as per wound certificate at Ex.P3 sustained 4 injuries out of which 3 and 4 are grievous in nature and 1 and 2 are simple injuries. He was inpatient for 18 days and underwent treatment for fracture of the right limb and other injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the tribunal awarded Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and it is on lower side. He was aged 39 years working as auto driver earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he did not attend any work at least for 6 months, but the meagre amount of the Rs.5,000/- was granted towards loss of income during laid up. Amount granted towards loss of amenities is meagre. Further, submits that the appellant was treated by way of intra medullary nailing and implant needs to be removed after healing of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 fracture. As such he also requires Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses, but it was not considered. He further submits that the accident took place on 19.05.2011 and the policy was in force during the time of accident. The driver of the vehicle was having learner’s license and it was issued on 11.02.2013. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the award amount. 6. As per the wound certificate, Ex.P3, the petitioner/claimant sustained the following injuries; “1. Lacerated wound over Right temporal region measuring 3x1 cm, and frontal region measuring 2x1 cm, CT Scan head –Normal. 2. Tenderness & Swelling over Right hand & Left hand ‘X’ ray Right+ hand AP- NAD ‘X’ ray Left hand AP-NAD 3. Tenderness and Swelling over the Left+ thigh X’ray Left+ femur AP-#L femur. 4. Tenderness over the mandibular region + X’ray skull AP-Alveolar #.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 Out of the aforementioned injuries, wound Nos.3 and 4 are grevious in nature. He was also hospitalised for a period of 18 days, but he has not examined the doctor. As such disability cannot be assessed. Considering the nature of injuries this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards injuries. Towards pain and suffering Rs.35,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities. The amount granted towards medical expenses of Rs.27,429/- holds good. This court also finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as an auto driver, but due to the injuries sustained by him, he might not have attended his work at least for a period of 5 months. Therefore, as he met with an accident during the year 2011, his income to be taken as Rs.6,500/- per month and thus he is entitled for Rs.6,500 X 5 = Rs.32,500/- under the head loss of income during laid up period. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 8. The petitioner further stated as he sustained fractures, there were implants and they required to be removed. Therefore, this court also finds reasonable to grant amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. 9. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Particulars Amount in Rs. Towards injuries 35,000 Pain and suffering 35,000 Loss of amenities 25,000 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 30,000 Medical expenses 27,429 Loss of income during laid up period 32,500 Loss of income during laid up period 25,000 Total 2,09,929 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total enhanced compensation of Rs.2,09,929/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 10. Further, it is contended by the respondent No.2, that as there was no driving licence at the time of accident, they are not liable to pay compensation. However, admittedly RW1 was having Learner’s Licence at the time of accident and he has filed the same under Ex.R2 and it is valid from 21.02.2011 to 20.08.2011. He met with an accident on 19.5.2011. As such, as on the date of accident, he was having learning licence and later he obtained regular licence. 11. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohammed Siddique & Anr., Vs. National Insurance Company ltd., & Ors in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 in which it is contended that there is no specific contention that accident occurred due to triple riding. As such the victim could not have been held guilty for contributory - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 negligence. He also relied upon another judgment reported in ILR 1989 KAR 441 in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Felix Correa in which it was held that the holder of the Learner’s Licence is the person duly licensed, held in Oriental Insurance case stated, as below, “14. Now taking the terms of the policy itself it is apparently clear that there was a promise on the part of the insured that the vehicle would be driven by a person holding valid driving licence or had held a permanent driving licence other than a Learner's Licence and was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence (emphasis supplied). This would only indicate that if at all the driver had a valid driving licence including a Learner's Licence at the time of the accident the Insurance Company would be liable but if he had no licence at the time the accident occurred then he must have held a permanent driving licence and was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a permanent driving licence. 12. Further, he mainly contended that as on the date of accident he was having Learner’s Licence and thus it was not mentioned specifically in the policy, that he was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 disqualified from holding the Learner’s License. Thus, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment of this court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.Pushpavathi and Ors in MFA No.11429/2006 dated 25.08.2010. The coordinate bench, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005(2) of ACJ 797 in case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. K.Sundarama and Ors, in which it was held as follows; “breach alleged is not the factor which has contributed to the cause of the accident and it is not a fundamental breach, so as to entitle the insurance company to avoid its liability all together”. Finally it was held that the insurance company is directed to pay the amount and recover from the owner of the vehicle. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 14. Learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that there may be direction to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, the rider of the offending vehicle was having Learner’s Licence at the time of accident and later he obtained regular license. Therefore, considering the aforementioned citations, this court feels that it is just and reasonable to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company and thus it is liable to pay the compensation. 15. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 23.04.2014 passed in MVC No.76/2012, by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Mangalore, D.K, is modified. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36155 MFA No. 5548 of 2014 iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,09,929/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.87,429/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order; v. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28