- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1980 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: H V RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O VEEREGOWDA R/OF HEGGANAHALLI VILLAGE MACHENAHALLI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, NOW R/AT PETE BEEDHI, KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR TOWN …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K SHANTHARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O CHINNAIAH R/AT NO.80, HIREGUNDAGAL VILLAGE OBALAPURA POST, KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-572 101. 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.31, T R R TOWER, 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, ADJACENT OF BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 13.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.673/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 13.12.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court- II, Tumkur, in MVC No.673 of 2010. 2. The injured claimant, aged 35 years, met with an accident on 09.05.2010, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.1,36,645/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The Tribunal dismissed the case against respondent No.2-insurance - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 company and held liable respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation within two months from the date of the said order. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that the Tribunal failed to note that tractor and trailer dashed the motorbike on which the appellant-claimant was proceeding and he becomes third party. Therefore, the rulings relied by respondent No.2-insurance company are not applicable to the facts of this case. It is contended that whether the driver of the Tractor is having the driving licence to drive LMV or non- transporting vehicle, is not relevant as the rider of the motor bike sustained grievous injuries and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and it cannot escape from its liability, but the Tribunal wrongly held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that claimant sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury and he took treatment for a period of 11 days. The Doctor - P.W.2 assessed the permanent disability at 15% to the whole body and the appellant-claimant spent more - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 than Rs.1.00 lakhs towards medical expenses and the Tribunal granted meagre amount under the other heads. It is also contended that the appellant-claimant was earning Rs.8,000/- by doing teacher work and therefore, the question of producing the disability certificate does not arise. The amount granted by the tribunal towards loss of earnings is on the lower side. It is also contended that implants have to be removed and the appellant-claimant requires another surgery. But, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is on the lower side. Thus, requested for enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. Appellant has stated that he was aged 35 years at the time of accident, working as a teacher at a government primary school on hire basis and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. While he was proceeding on his motorbike bearing registration No.KA-R-H-6016 on Tumkur-Madhugiri road and reached near Arakere Village, a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 02-T-2274-75 came from opposite direction with high speed and dashed the claimant. As a result, he sustained the following injuries. “1. Swelling and tenderness on the left arm radius. 2. Swelling tenderness over the right leg. 3. Abrasion over the forehead and other injuries all over the body.” 6. Out of the aforesaid injuries, the first and second injuries are grievous and the third one is simple. Exhibit P5 is wound certificate. Exhibit P6 is discharge summary, which shows that the claimant took treatment as inpatient from 01.05.2010. But the period of treatment is not mentioned properly. 7. The respondent-insurance company took an objection that driver of the tractor was not having a valid driving licence as on the date of accident and it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As the claimant is a government employee, the question of granting compensation for loss of future earning capacity does not arise. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 8. The appellant-claimant is a government employee and he continued his work even after the accident. Therefore, the question of granting the compensation towards loss of future earning capacity does not arise. He sustained two grievous and one simple injury and was admitted in the hospital for a period of 11 days. Considering the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 9. The appellant-claimant has not filed leave record to show as to how much leave he availed. As per his statement, he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.267/- per day. Admittedly, he was inpatient for 11 days. Therefore, he is entitled for Rs.2,937/- (267x11) towards loss of income during the treatment period. The Tribunal granted Rs.70,545/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards future medical expenses. P.W.2 orthopaedic surgeon stated that claimant requires another surgery for removal of implants in both right leg and left leg and estimated the cost as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,42,933/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.1,36,645/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Medical expenses 70,545/- 2. Pain and Suffering 50,000/- 3. Loss of amenities 30,000/- 4. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 30,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period 2,933/- 6. Future medical expenses 30,000/- Total 1,42,933/- 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in 2016(4) SCC 298 , wherein - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 it was held that there was no driving licence at the time of accident and insurance company was directed to pay compensation and they were at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 12. Learned counsel for insurance company submits that the owner of the vehicle has to dispute liability and prefer an appeal, but he did not turn up, whereas the claimant stated that he filed the present appeal disputing quantum of compensation and also liability. As it is the case of no driving licence, this Court finds it reasonable to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS. VS. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018)3 SCC 208, and direct the insurance company to pay the compensation directly and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 13. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.1,42,932/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29707 MFA No. 1980 of 2012 (iii) The respondent insurance company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.6,287/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. (v) The respondent-insurance company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74