HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3416 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATAPPA @ VENKATESHAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA @ THIMMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.111, BOMMANAHALLI, NEAR NELAMANGALA TOLL GATE, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND ALSO C.H.PALYA, GUJJANADU, POST, PAVAGADA TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.P.NAGARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, SLV TOWERS, 40TH MAIN ROAD, PARAVATHINAGAR, BELLARY, KARNATAKA-583 013. 2. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O REVANNA SIDDAPPA, R/AT GONDBAL VILLAGE AND POST, KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HOLEBASAPPA.C.BETSUR., ADVOCATE R1; SRI. N.R.RANGEGOWDA., ADVOCATE R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.28.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 2 NO.59/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, NELAMANGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant/claimant seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 28.12.2020 in MVC No.59/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,19,594/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. The appeal is being contested by the respondent No.1/Insurance Company as well as the respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 3 3. Briefly, the facts are that when the appellant/claimant along with his family members, were travelling in a Mahindra Pickup luggage vehicle/goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-37-7732 on 30.07.2013 at about 6.00 a.m., the driver of the vehicle who had driven it in a rash and negligent manner, caused an accident by hitting a lorry bearing Registration No.RJ- 14-2036. The appellant/claimant who had sustained injuries was hospitalised and underwent treatment. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The claim petition was contested by both respondent No.1/Insurance Company as well as respondent No.2/owner of the goods vehicle in which the appellant/claimant was travelling. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident took place on 30.07.2013 at about 6.45 a.m. in front of Hirehalli Petrol Bunk on Bangalore-Tumkur National Highway due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Pickup Luggage Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-37-7732 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 4 3) What order or award?” 5. The appellant/claimant was examined as PW-1 and produced certain documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. The Legal Manager of the respondent No.1/Insurance Company was examined as well. However, the owner or Insurance Company did not adduce or produce any evidence. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record, gave a finding that the appellant/claimant was travelling along with other passengers in a goods vehicle. 6. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence based on the FIR, complaint, mahazar, sketch, MV Accident report, Final report, Wound Certificate, Discharge Summary, receipts and medical bills (Exhibits P1 to P18), found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In addition, the learned Tribunal found that the injured was unable to prove his income, however, awarded the amounts on the notional income of the injured at HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 5 Rs.8,000/- per month. Compensation towards other non- pecuniary heads were also awarded in the following terms: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount (Rs.) 1 Towards Medical expenses and nourishment Rs.12,928-00 2 Towards loss of income during laid up period and rest Rs.26,666-00 3 Towards injury pain and sufferings Rs.60,000-00 4 Towards loss of future income Nil 5 Towards loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000-00 6 Future medical expenses Nil TOTAL Rs.1,19,594-00 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal were inadequate. He submits that further amounts should have been awarded towards income during laid-up period and towards non-pecuniary heads. In addition, he contends that the loss of amenities was wrongly awarded at Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-. Lastly it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that an order for pay and recovery should have been granted in the matter. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 6 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Insurance Company contends that there is no question of the liability being fastened on the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, since there is a clear finding of breach of policy. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle submits that the Impugned Award does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record, gave a finding that the appellant/claimant was travelling along with other passengers in a goods vehicle. The learned Tribunal found that the appellant/claimant had admitted to pay Rs.50/- to the driver and thus gave a finding that the Insurance Policy has been breached and the liability was fastened on respondent No.2 alone. Based on the admission of the appellant/claimant, the learned Tribunal has found that there was a breach of the Insurance Policy. The relevant extract is set out below: “26. In so far as, the liability to pay the aforesaid compensation is concerned the evidence on record indicate that, as per the admission of PW1 he along with other inmates boarded into the Goods Vehicle HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 7 at Tollgate towards Doddachelluru. He clearly admits that, each of them paid Rs.50/- per head to the driver. He also admits that, it was a Goods Vehicle. It is not the case of the Petitioner that, he was traveling along with Goods or was carrying the Goods along with him. There is no dispute as regards the class of vehicle. On the other hand there is clear admission from the evidence of PW1 that the vehicle in which he was traveling was a Goods Vehicle and was a fare paid passenger. Thus, under the present facts and circumstance the liability of the Insurance Company is exonerated on the ground that, the policy not covering the risk of fare paid passenger. The injured was only a fare paid passenger as on the date of the accident. Thus, the Respondent No.1 has no liability to indemnify the Petitioner about the injuries sustained and as such it is for the Respondent No.2 to pay the compensation amount and liable to pay with interest accordingly. The evidence on record discloses that the petitioner has incurred cost in filing this petition. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled for cost of the petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I incline to award interest at the rate of 9% p.a. towards the award of compensation, from the date of petition, till its realization. For the foregoing reasons, I answer issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.” [Emphasis Supplied] 10. Given the admission on the part of the appellant/claimant, there is no ground to interfere with this finding. 11. It is the contention of the respondents that neither was the Doctor examined nor was there any surgery undertaken despite which amounts have been granted HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 8 towards injury, pain and suffering and loss of income during laid-up period. However, it cannot be disputed that the appellant was hospitalised for 10 days. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded, except to the award for loss of amenities which is awarded in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. Concededly, in terms of the settled law, compensation towards loss of amenities should have been awarded at Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, the Award is modified in the following manner: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount (Rs.) 1 Towards Medical expenses and nourishment Rs.12,928-00 2 Towards loss of income during laid up period and rest Rs.26,666-00 3 Towards injury pain and sufferings Rs.60,000-00 4 Towards loss of future income Nil 5 Towards loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000-00 6 Future medical expenses Nil TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,29,594-00 Less: Awarded by Tribunal Rs.1,19,594-00 Enhanced compensation Rs.10,000/- 12. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,29,594/- along with interest as HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 9 awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. 13. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 28.12.2020 in MVC No.59/2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala is modified, enhancing the compensation by Rs.10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization as awarded by the learned Tribunal; (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) The respondent No.2/owner shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest applicable HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20735 MFA No. 3416 of 2021 10 thereon, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; (v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate application by the appellant/claimant for withdrawal of the enhanced amount. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. (viii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA