- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200896 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NAMADEV S/O DIGAMBAR KEDAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O VASU KEDRAWADI, TQ. SANGOLA, DIST. SOLAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT TIKOTA, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SANGITA W/O SATISH DIGHE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NEAR ITI COLLEGE, CHONCHOLI ROAD, SONGOLA, DIST. SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413 307. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII, VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.397/2020. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 2. Though the matter is slated for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 is on the lower side and that fasting of the liability on the owner by the Tribunal is erroneous. 4. The fact that there was an accident on 27.12.2019 when the petitioner was proceeding to his relatives house on a motorcycle as a pillion rider and the motorcycle was hit by a Mahindra Bolero bearing No.MH- 45/A-8654, in which accident, the rider died and the petitioner sustained injuries is not disputed. The petitioner had sustained abrasion over the scalp measuring 5cmx5cm, cut lacerated wound over the right foot measuring 2cm x 3cm, multiple abrasions over the right side of the body, there were no grievous injuries to the petitioner. 5. The respondent No.1-owner of Bolero and the respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the petition. 6. The respondent No.1-owner of the Bolero Jeep in his written statement contended that his driver was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 having a valid driving licence and therefore the liability, if any, has to be fastened upon the respondent No.2- Insurance Company. 7. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company denied the claim petition contending that the driver of the Bolero Jeep was not having a valid driving licence and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. No evidence was lead on behalf of the respondents. 9. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.37,580/- under following head: Sl. No. Different heads Compensation amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.3,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.25,580/- 3. Loss of earning during laid up period Rs.3,000/- 4. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability NIL 5. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.3,000/- 6. Attendant, diet, conveyance and other charges Rs.3,000/- Total Rs.37,580/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 Further, the Tribunal fastened the liability upon the respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle on the ground that though respondent No.1 had contended that the driving licence was possessed by his driver, he had not produced it. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the conclusion of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation and the liability are erroneous. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the contentions taken up by respondent No.1 in the written statement remained to the contentions and evidence was not led to establish that the driver had the valid driving licence. He submits that the compensation awarded is adequate and no enhancement is required. 12. It is evident that the petitioner had produced FIR and the charge-sheet, which disclosed that the driver of the Bolero Jeep was prosecuted for the offences - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 of IPC and Section 184 of M.V.Act. There was no allegation against the driver that he drove the same without a driving licence. 13. The respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle contended that his driver had a valid driving licence. Of course, he did not adduce any evidence by producing said driving licence. The Tribunal on the basis of the above material held that it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to produce the driving licence in order to fasten the liability on the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It lost sight of the fact that the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has also not lead any evidence in the matter. What is available on record is the charge-sheet, which do not indict the driver of the Bolero Jeep for not possessing the driving licence. Therefore, if the respondent No.1 has not produced the driving licence, it is a matter inter se between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2- Insurance Company. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 14. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba1 is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Swaran Singh and Others2, makes it very clear that if the owner of the vehicle has appeared before the Tribunal and has taken up the contention that the driver had a valid driving licence and believing so he had entrusted the vehicle it would suffice to fasten the liability upon the Insurance Company and order of payment of compensation and then recover the same from the insured. In that view of the matter, the conclusion of the Tribunal are erroneous and to be set at naught. 15. So far as the quantum is concerned, the petitioner had suffered three minor injuries as stated supra. He had spent a sum of Rs.25,580/- towards medical expenses. In other words, a sum of Rs.12,000/- 1 (2018) 3 SCC 208 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 had been awarded by the Tribunal in respect of pain and suffering and all such other heads, which are permissible. 16. On reassessment of the same, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 17. In the result, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in-part. (ii) The petitioner is entitled for an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner and is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1-owner. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510 MFA No. 200896 of 2022 (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48 CT: AK