- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: V. GOVINDARAJU S/O B M VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A PETECHERI CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RITHIS D NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANDEEP S/O SHIVARAJ MAJOR NO.26/2,MALURU VILLAGE POST HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501 2. TATA IAG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 3RD FLOOR, JAMBOKESHWARA ARCADE VASANTHA NAGARA BANGALORE-560052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 calling in question the judgment and award dated 27.6.2016 passed in MVC No.119/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT, Channapatna2, whereunder the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of `1,87,720/- with interest at 6% p.a. However, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the insured Autorickshaw has violated the permit condition and hence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim against respondent No.2 – insurer and directed respondent No.1 – owner of the insured vehicle to pay the compensation awarded. 2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri Rithish D.Naik appearing on behalf of learned counsel T.P.Vivekananda, for the appellant/claimant and learned 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 counsel Sri B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurer. Respondent No.1 – owner is served and unrepresented. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that having regard to the judgment in the case of Rani and Ors., V/S National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.,3 the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be paid by the insurer with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is further contended that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer justifies the finding recorded by the Tribunal on liability and further contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 5. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal had been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on liability is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? 3 “AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 84” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 ii. Whether the quantum of compensation is liable to be enhanced? Re. question No.(i): 6. It is the case of the claimant that when he was proceeding on his motorcycle, an Autorickshaw came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle causing the accident in question. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively before the Tribunal. Both the respondents were served in the claim proceedings and filed their statement of objections. Respondent No.1 – owner of the offending vehicle denied the assertions made in the claim petition, more particularly, the assertion that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw. It was further averred that that the Autorickshaw was insured with respondent No.2 and compensation, if any is liable to be paid by the insurer. Respondent No.2 – insurer in its statement of objections has denied the assertions made in the claim petition as also contended, inter alia, that the insured vehicle was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 plying beyond the permit area and hence, there was violation of the permit condition. 7. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and a doctor as PW.2. The insurer examined its official as RW.1, wherein RW.1 has deposed that the insured vehicle had permit to ply only in Channapatna Taluk limits, whereas the accident took place in Mandya limits. The permit extract (Ex.R3) also discloses the route permit as Channapatna Taluk. The Superintendent of Regional Transport Office, Channapatna, was examined as RW.2, who has deposed regarding the fact that the insured vehicle had permit to ply within Channapatna Town limits. 8. The Tribunal, considering the contention of the insurer with regard to the liability has recorded a finding that the accident took place in Mandya limits and the permit having been issued for the insured Autorickshaw only in Channapatna Taluk limits, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. Hence, the Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the vehicle and exonerated the insurer from payment of the compensation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 9. Although the owner of the vehicle was represented before the Tribunal and the insurer had taken a specific defence with regard to the permit violation as has been noticed above, the owner has not adduced any evidence regarding the same. Further, the owner has also not filed an appeal challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 10. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani3 and having regard to the factual matrix as noticed above, it is just and proper that the insurer be directed to pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, question No.(i) is answered partly in the affirmative. Re. question No.(ii): 11. The claimant is aged 32 years as on the date of the accident i.e., 19.7.2009. Hence, the Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘16’, which is just and proper. 12. The claimant averred that he was doing contract work and earning `7,500/- per month. However, no documents have been produced to demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant at `3,000/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 Having regard to the date of the accident, it is just and proper that the notional income of the claimant be re-assessed as `5,000/- p.m. 13. It is evident from the wound certificate (Ex.P5), discharge summary (Ex.P6), the testimony of the doctor (PW.2) that the claimant was treated as an inpatient for a total period of 70 days. The doctor (PW.2) has deposed that the claimant has sustained compound type III fracture of the right tibia and fibula with crush injury and lacerated wound over the fracture area. PW.2 has deposed the whole body disability as 13.68%. The Tribunal has also assessed the whole body disability as 13.68%, which is just and proper. 14. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re-assessed as follows: 14.1. The compensation of `50,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering and `30,000/- towards loss of amenities, is just and proper; 14.2. The Tribunal has awarded `20,000/- towards medical and incidental charges. It is forthcoming from the records that the claimant has produced medical bills for a total sum of `13,181/-. Hence, it is just and proper that `15,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 be awarded towards the same. Having regard to the period of treatment, it is just and proper that a compensation of `15,000/- be awarded towards food, nourishment and attendant charges; 14.3. The laid up period is assessed as 4 months and a compensation of (`5,000/-x4) `20,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during laid up period as against `9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; 14.4. Loss of earning capacity due to disability is re- assessed (`5,000/-x12x16x13.68%) `1,31,328/- as against `78,720/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering 50000.00 50000.00 2. Loss of amenities & happiness 30000.00 30000.00 3. Medical and incidental expenses 20000.00 15000.00 4 Food, nourishment & attendant charges 0.00 15000.00 5 Loss of earning during laid up period 9000.00 20000.00 6 Loss of earning due to permanent disability 78720.00 131328.00 Total 187720.00 261328.00 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 16. Hence, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of (`2,61,328/- – `1,87,720/-) `73,608/-. Accordingly, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 17. In the result, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 27.6.2016 passed in MVC No.119/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT, Channapatna, is modified to an extent of holding that the claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of ₹2,61,328/- to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, which compensation shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 – insurer with liberty to recover the same from the owner (respondent No.1); iii) Respondent No.2 – insurer shall deposit the said compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28450 MFA No. 114 of 2017 iv) Upon such deposit, the entire compensation together with interest accrued thereupon be disbursed to the claimant digitally; v) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; vi) Records of the Tribunal be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29