- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4913 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI @ CHALAPATHI, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DODDA CHINNAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT PIN 563114 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR KOLAR TOWN-563 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K C MUNIRATHNAM S/O MUNISWAMY MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT KUMDARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, BETHAMANGALA POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT PIN-563 114. 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.31, T B R TOWER, 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, NEXT TO BANGALORE STOCK Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 EXCHANGE, J C ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002, REP. BY IT’S MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.S. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.269/13 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.12.2015 passed in MVC No.269/13 by the MACT & I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The injured claimant met with an accident on 01.04.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.2,76,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the driver of vehicle involved in the accident has no effective driving licence. He had driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (non- transport), but he was driving light transport vehicle and should have entrusted the vehicle to the driver having valid driving license and further stated that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the third party. A statutory liability arises as per the provisions of 149 of the MV Act. It is further stated that this court can - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 invoke the principle of pay and recovery and also requested the court to grant just compensation. 5. Though petitioner stated that he was a driver working in Oxford school, Kammasandra village, Bangarpet Talukand earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2012, this court finds that it is just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 23 years and the relevant multiplier is 18. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries and also filed Ex.P6/wound certificate, Ex.P7/discharge summary and examined the doctor as PW2. He stated that the petitioner sustained open type II fracture of mid shaft of right femur, closed fracture of both bones of right leg and unstable pelvic fracture (pelvic diastesis). He underwent surgeries i.e., open reduction and internal fixation with IMIL Nailing for left femur, closed reduction and internal fixation with IMIL Nailing for right - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 tibia and external fixation application for pelvic diasthesis on 02.04.2012. He was treated as an inpatient and was discharged from the hospital on 07.06.2012. The petitioner is still under treatment as an outpatient. Further, as per the latest report of the doctor on 11.06.2015 the doctor has the following findings; “1. Power of hip flexionis grade 4 in right hip flexion. 2. Hip flexion 110 deg on right side. 3. Power of right knee – grade 4. 4. Knew flexion 110 deg with lag of 15 deg 5. He has difficulty in walking on slope. 6. He has mild discomfort in climbing and getting down stairs. 7. He can stand on both legs but has difficulty in standing on right leg. 8. He has pain and difficulty to squat. 9. He has pain to sit cross leg. 10. He has mild pain on kneeling 11. He has no pain on taking turns The latest X-ray shows fracture partially united with both femur and tibia with implant insitu.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 and assessed the lower limb disability as 42% and whole body disability as 14%. In the cross-examination, it is stated that he sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and right femur. Considering the medical evidence on record, this court finds that it is just and reasonable to take disability as 14% instead of 12% taken by the tribunal without any basis. Hence, loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.7000 x 12 x 18 x 14% = Rs.2,11,680/-. He was admitted in the hospital for a period of 65 days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other factors, this court finds it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.40,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 6 months, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, therefore, Rs.42000/- (7000 x 6 ) is to be granted under the head loss of income during laid up period. Tribunal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 already granted Rs.77,000/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. 6. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,76,600/- to Rs.4,95,680/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of future income capacity 2,11,680 2 Pain and suffering 75,000 3 Loss of amenities 50,000 4 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 40,000 5 Loss of income during laid down period 42,000 6 Medical bills 77,000 Total 4,95,680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 7. The tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that there is no valid driving license. The counsel of the appellant stated that the driver of the vehicle was having license to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) but he was driving a light transport vehicle and relied upon a citation reported in (2017)14 SCC 663 in case of Mukund Dewagan Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Therefore, this court finds that it is just and reasonable to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company. 8. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 01.12.2015 passed in MVC No.269/13 by the MACT & I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, is modified. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 iii. The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,95,680/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.2,76,600/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.2,19,080/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29154 MFA No. 4913 of 2016 vi. On 15.09.2023, the delay of 131 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59