- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA B., W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGE:39 YEARS,OCC:TAILOR, R/O NO.279, 7TH A CROSS, CHOWDESHWARINAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058. NEW ADDRESS NO.10, 11TH CROSS, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARA HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 086. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DHANANJAYA, S/O CHIKKA HANUMANTHAIAH, R/O KAREKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 010. SINCE R1 IS DEAD RESPONDENT NO.1(a) IS ADDED BY AMENDMENT AS PER ORDER DATED: 22.01.2024. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 1(a). SRI. GAUTHAM, S/O LATE DHANANJAYA, NO.28, 1ST CROSS, KARIKALLU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079. 2. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.44/45, LEO COMPLEX, RESIDENCE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1(a) IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4477/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant challenging the Judgment and award dated 20.10.2015 passed by the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-7)1 in M.V.C No.4477/2014. 2. The Tribunal by means of Judgment and award, granted compensation of Rs.2,35,910/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. However, fastened the entire liability on respondent No.1 - Insured on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was lacking Fitness Certificate2 as on the date of accident. 3. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and injury suffered are not in dispute. The only dispute is 1 the Tribunal, for short 2 'the FC', for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 with respect to quantum of compensation and the liability fastened on the Insured. 4. Heard, Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.P.S.Jagadish, learned counsel for Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurer. Respondent No.1(A) though served, remained unrepresented. 5. Sri.Suresh M.latur, argued this matter on two grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal though allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation, but erred in exonerating the Insurer absolutely, thereby fastening entire liability on the Insured on the premise that the vehicle involved in the accident was lacking the FC as on the date of the accident. He further submits that in view of settled position of law, the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurer to pay compensation primarily with liberty to recover the same from the Insurer, as the claimant was a third party. Secondly, the compensation awarded when - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 compared to injuries suffered, the treatment underwent by the claimant and her in-patient period i.e., 37 days in the hospital when seen with respect to all heads are very meager and requires reconsideration under all heads. Learned counsel further submits that the income considered by the Tribunal is very inadequate. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2014 i.e., on 09.07.2014, as per the income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income fixed in respect of accident that occurred in the year 2014 is Rs.8,500/- per month. With this he sought to allow the appeal. 6. Sri.P.S.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel for the Insurer with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal is right in holding that the Insured is liable to pay compensation. The reason being the vehicle was lacking the FC. As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, a vehicle without proper FC is not permitted to be plied on the road. In the case on hand, respondent No.1 Insured has taken risk of plying the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 vehicle on the road without proper FC. As such, the first ground of learned counsel for the claimant does not hold any water and required to be rejected. Secondly, the compensation awarded when compared to injuries under all heads are proper and just compensation. As such the entire Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. With this he sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I have gone through the entire appeal memorandum as well as Trial Court record. 8. The following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the claimant has made out any case for enhancement? (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in exonerating the insured absolutely? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 9. My answer to the above points for consideration are as under: Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative. Point No.2: Partly in the Affirmative, for the following: REASONS 10. POINT NO.1: Admittedly the accident has occurred in the year 2014. As per the Chart prepared by the KSLSA, the income fixed in respect of unskilled labor for the accident occurred in the year 2014 is Rs.8,500/- per month. In the absence of any documents to prove the income, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income fixed under the Chart. Accordingly, the income is taken at Rs.8,500/- per month as against Rs.5,000/- taken by the Tribunal. When compared to injuries suffered, the length of treatment and period of in-patient, the compensation awarded under each head requires reconsideration, except medical expenses. The claimant has suffered following injuries: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 “Acute tear of anterior cruciate ligament with effusion, Grade I strain of lateral collateral ligament, popliteo-fibular ligament injury.” 11. The claimant took treatment at Chord Road Hospital, and thereafter shifted to higher center and she was in-patient for 37 days. The doctor who was examined as PW.3 has clearly stated about disability, which is considered at Paragraph No.32 of the Judgment wherein he has opined that the claimant has suffered permanent residual disability to the extent of 23.6% of right lower limb and 11.8% (12%) of whole body. The Tribunal has considered the disability at 8%, but the same is on the lower side when compared to the avocation of the claimant as Tailor as on the date of accident. In these circumstances, the disability stated by the doctor at 12% is required to be considered and accordingly, the same is considered. In view of taking higher income and the higher disability and looking into the injuries suffered, the period of treatment and period of in-patient, the compensation - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 awarded under all the heads, except medical expensed requires reconsideration. The claimant has made out a case for enhancement. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative. 12. POINT NO.2: So far as liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has fastened the entire liability on the Insured, exonerating the Insurer only on the ground that the vehicle was lacking FC as on the date of accident. Admittedly, the claimant was third party. The Supreme Court in catena of cases has held that whenever there is involvement of third party claim, even in the violation of policy conditions, the Insurer is primarily made liable to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the Insured. In these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurer absolutely is erroneous. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered Partly in the Affirmative and the finding of the Tribunal is modified. In view of answering Point No.2 in favor of the claimant, the Insurer - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 is directed to pay the compensation primarily with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e., Insured. 13. So far as quantum is concerned, in view of the reasons stated supra, the claimant is entitled for the following re-determined compensation. Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Loss of future income 72,000-00 1,83,600-00 (8,500 x 12 x 15 x 12%) 2. Pain and sufferings 25,000-00 40,000-00 (25,000 + 15,000) 3. Loss of amenities of life 10,000-00 40,000-00 (10,000 + 30,000) 4. Loss of income during laid up period 10,000-00 25,500-00 (8,500 x 3) 5. Medical expenses 1,14,910-00 1,14,910-00 6. Conveyance, Attendant Charges, Food, Nourishment & Diet charges 4,000-00 15,000-00 (4,000 + 11,000) TOTAL Rs.2,35,910-00 Rs.304,100-00 14. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.3,04,100/- as against Rs.2,35,910/-, rounded off at Rs.3,05,000/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 20.10.2015 passed by the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-7) in M.V.C No.4477/2014 is modified and the compensation is reassessed. (iii) The Claimant is entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iv) Respondent No.2 - Insurer shall deposit the entire reassessed compensation along with accrued interest supra primarily - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25457 MFA No. 47 of 2016 before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with liberty to recover the same from the Insured. (v) Upon deposit, the disbursement is as per the order passed by the Tribunal. (vi) The Trial Court Record secured if any, shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal. (vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36