- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201030 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SANTOSH S/O BADHAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR/COOLIE, R/O: VILLAGE BAGDAL THANDA, TQ. AND DIST: BIDAR – 585 402. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL MAJEED S/O ABDUL GAFFAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER AND BUSINESS, R/O: BAGDAL, TQ AND DIST: BIDAR – 585 402. (OWNER OF MAHINDRA MAXIMO MINI VAN BEARING NO.KA-38/M-4286) 2. THE MANAGER, IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, HAVAPPA COMPLEX NO.200, 201 AND 202, UDGIR ROAD, SHIVNAGAR SOUTH, BIDAR – 585 401. (VIDE POLICY NO.1-2LDWKEIP P 400 POLICY# MR 763779) (VALID FROM 15.11.2022 TO 14.11.2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. MACT, BIDAR, IN MVC NO.291/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, Bidar (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.291/2023, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 16.11.2022, when claimant along with others were traveling in maxi cab reg.no.KA-38/M-4286 to go to Chalki village in Telangana, rider of motorcycle reg.no.KA- 38/L-7964 came from opposite side, due to same driver of maxi cab lost control over vehicle dashed against motorcycle and caused accident. In said accident, claimant sustained fracture of right wrist elbow, distal radius and other grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Bidar and later he also took treatment in private hospital. Despite same, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 he sustained permanent physical disability and consequential loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of maxi cab. 3. On contest, wherein insurer filed objections denying claim petition averments in toto and alleging violation of policy conditions, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Mallikarjun as PW.2, Exs.P1 to P.11 were marked. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Insurance Policy as Ex.R1. 4. On consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver, claimant had sustained permanent disability and loss of earning capacity and therefore, claimant was entitled for compensation assessed by it as follows: Pain and sufferings `10,000/- Loss of future income on account of permanent disability `1,84,320/- Medical expenses, attendant, conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental expenses `10,100/- Loss of income during laid up period `12,000/- Loss of amenities, life comforts and expectancy of life `5,000/- Total `2,21,420/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 5. On ground that insurance coverage subscribed was against third parties only, it absolved insurer of liability. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation and finding on liability, claimant was in appeal. 6. It was submitted though claimant had stated he was an agricultural coolie, earning `15,000/- per month, tribunal erred in taking it at `12,000/-. It was further submitted, tribunal awarded only `10,000/- towards pain and suffering which was grossly inadequate. Likewise, award of `12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, `10,100/- towards medical expenses, attendant, nourishment and other incidental expenses and `5,000/- towards loss of amenities were grossly inadequate and sought enhancement. 7. It was submitted, PW.2 – Doctor had assessed limb disability at 25%. However, he had specifically stated that claimant had lost grip strength could not button-up his shirt etc. Considering same, assessment of functional disability at 8% was on lower side and sought enhancement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 8. It was further submitted Insurance Policy produced disclosed acceptance of additional premium for unnamed passengers. Therefore, claimant would be covered and insurer would be liable. 9. On other hand, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for respondent – Insurer opposed appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 11. From above and since only claimant is in appeal both on liability as well as enhancement, points that would arise for consideration are : 1. Whether tribunal was justified in holding owner is liable to pay compensation even when insurer had collected additional premium towards covering risk of passengers in commercial vehicle ? 2. Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for ? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 Point no.1 : 12. Perusal of Ex.R1 – Issuance Policy would indicate that insurer has collected premium of `300/- (IMT-16) to cover risk of passengers in vehicle with financial limit of liability at `15,00,000/- during coverage. There is no material led by insurer to establish that said limit is exhausted. In view of collection of special premium, insurer would have to be held liable. Point no.1 is answered in negative. Point no.2 : 13. Claimant sustained fracture of right distal radius apart form other blunt injuries. Award of `10,000/- towards pain and suffering would not be adequate, it would be appropriate to enhance it to `30,000/-. Though claimant had stated that monthly income was `15,000/- same was not substantiated any material. In absence, tribunal assessed notionally at `10,000/- but notional income for year 2022, would be `14,750/-, same has to be considered. Further when PW.2 – Orthopedic Doctor examined claimant and assessed limb disability at 25% and also specifically deposed about restriction or reduction of loss of grip strength of his right hand, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 assessment of functional disability at 1/3rd of limb disability would not be proper. Taking note of fact that claimant is agricultural coolie, it would be appropriate to enhance functional disability to 10%. Thus, compensation towards future loss of income would be computed as follows : `14,750/- x 10% x 12 x 16 = `2,83,200/-. 14. Tribunal has awarded `10,100/- towards attendance, nourishment and other incidental expenses including medical expenses. It is seen that claimant has not produced any medical bills, taking note of same award would appear just leaving no scope for enhancement. Normally, fractures take three months to heal. Same has to be taken as lay off period. Thus, claimant would be entitled to `44,250/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Award of `5,000/- towards loss of amenities when claimant has sustained fracture and permanent physical disability would not be justified, it would be appropriate to enhance it to `25,000/-. Thus, claimant would be entitled to total compensation of `3,92,550/- as against `2,21,420/- as awarded by tribunal. Point no.2 is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389 MFA No. 201030 of 2024 answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed in MVC no.291/2023 by Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT, Bidar is modified, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of `3,92,550/- as against `2,21,420/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. ii. Insurer is held liable to pay same and is directed to deposit it before Tribunal within six weeks. iii. Conditions about deposit/release shall apply to enhanced award proportionately as per tribunal award. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47