- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3224 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. SHAHID AHMED S/O SHAFFER AHMED AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT SHANTHAPURA BANAVADI POST, SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 127 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SHABEER AHMED S/O MR. BABASAB SHANTHAPURA, BANAVADI POST MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 127 2. THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.121, 9TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE DICKENSON ROAD, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DTD.07.04.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2399/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-23, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant injured by name Mr. Shahid Ahmed S/o Shaffer Ahmed is before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 27.11.2019 passed in MVC.No.2399/2018 by the learned XI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM., Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru wherein, the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "M.V. Act") claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs Only) on account of he suffering grevious injuries in a road traffic accident that took place - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 on 20.02.2018 at about 10:45 am., when he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-52-Q-5759 on Agara fly over, outer ring road, Bengaluru. It is alleged that, at that time, the driver of the lorry came in opposite side with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of it, petitioner sustained grevious injuries and he was shifted to Greenview Hospital, wherein he took first aid treatment and thereafter, shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru. He alleges that, he has spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. It is stated that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and working as mechanic and earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Now, he has lost his income and he is unable to attend his work. Hence, he prays to award the compensation as prayed. 2. Before the tribunal, notice was issued to respondents. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent, but, whereas, respondent No.2 - Insurer - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 appeared and opposed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. 3. It is contented that, the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the assertions made in the petition with regard to the nature of the accident, his income, injuries and disability etc. By framing relevant issues based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the tribunal posted the case for evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner himself entered the witness box as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and also examined PW.2 - Dr.S.A.Somashekar and closed the petitioner evidence. To rebut the evidence of the petitioner, one S.Pruthvi Raj, officer of the respondent No.2 was examined as RW.1. 4. The learned tribunal on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, awarded Rs.1,49,062/- in all, together with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. Being aggrieved by the same, now the petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 5. Evidently this petition so filed by the petitioner is under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner much relies upon the provisions of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said provision reads as under: "164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. (2)In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person. (3)Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section." 6. Relying upon this said provision, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Suresh M. Latur, with all vehemence submits that, whatever the compensation so awarded by the tribunal is on lower side and submits that, in view of the strict provisions of Section 164 of the M.V.Act, in case of suffering grievous injuries, the minimum compensation that would be awarded is Rs.2,50,000/-. 7. On the other hand, Sri. B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, whatever the compensation awarded by the tribunal is justified and no interference is required. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the sides. Evidently, this petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. There is an amendment to the M.V.Act in the year 2018 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 and said amendment came into force from 22.05.2018. The question arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court that whether this amendment to Section 163-A has got a retrospective effect or otherwise. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment reported in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Urmila Halder reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 4983, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para-10 of the judgment as under: "10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and we agree with the view taken. We may, however, add that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. In the present case, the liability of the appellant- Insurance Company has not been interfered with. Only the computational mode and the modality have been further clarified, which rightly has been noted by the High Court and accordingly, the claim has been enhanced to ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). As 50% of the compensation amount was stayed by this Court, the same be paid to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment within eight weeks." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 9. So this observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the effect of the amendment dated 22.05.2018 to the M.V. Act, shows that, as the M.V. Act is the beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed onto the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. In the present case also, the liability of the insurance company is not disputed by respondent No.2. Only with regard to the computation of compensation is questioned in this case. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, supra as well as the amended provisions of the M.V.Act, as the petitioner has suffered fracture of femur, it being a grievous injury, the petitioner is held entitle for global compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in all, with interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29770 MFA No. 3224 of 2020 10. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 27.11.2019 passed in M.V.C.No.2399/2018 by the XI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified. (iii) The petitioner is held entitle for global compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- together with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition, till its realization. (iv) There shall be modified award accordingly. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PHM/AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37