- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.719 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. MOMIN FARUK LAMBA, W/O FARUK LAMBA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO 316, 3RD CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI, NEAR ABBAS HUSSAIN MAJID, NAYANDANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 039. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. AMBIKA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHD SHERIFF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD T P HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. MR. SYED JABEE S/O SYED AHMED, NO.65, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K R PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- SYED JABEE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.378/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM, XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), 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 MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The claimant has preferred this appeal being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in MVC No.378/2014 dated 07.03.2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,09,800/- along with 8% interest. 2. The accident in question and the coverage of the insurance policy to the offending vehicle i.e., goods tempo are not in dispute. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal erred while awarding the compensation under all heads without - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 considering the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the disability at 20% despite the Doctor-PW2 has deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant has suffered 69% disability to the left lower limb and 23% disability to the whole body. Further, by placing reliance on Ex.P4- wound certificate and Ex.P5- discharge summary, she submits that the claimant has sustained severe injuries and there is a functional disability of more than 25%. As such, she prays to modify the same. She also contends that the Tribunal erred while awarding compensation on the other heads i.e., pain and suffering, loss of amenities, income during laid up period and future medical expenses. Lastly, she contends that the Tribunal also erred by exonerating the insurance company on the premise that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing the valid driving licence at the time of accident. 4. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MUKUND DEWAGAN vs. ORIENTAL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298, she submits that even if the said aspect is proved and even if the driver had not possessed driving licence, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the insurance company and thereafter giving liberty to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. With these submissions she prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the Tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence awarded just compensation which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. He also contends that the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability at 20% by placing reliance on the testimony of PW2- Doctor. However, he fairly submits that this is a case where a pay and recovery order may be passed since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. With these submissions, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 6. I have given my anxious consideration on both the submission and perused the entire materials placed before me. As could be gathered from records, the accident is of the year 2014 and the injured was 51 years at the time of accident, and the evidence of PW2-Doctor depicts that she has sustained disability of 69% on the left lower limb and the whole body disability is 23%. The normal course of time the Tribunal ought to have considered 1/3rd of the disability to the whole body i.e., 23%. Without appreciating the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal has taken 20% disability which has to be modified to 23%. In such circumstances, the claimant is also entitled for the future prospects. Since the claimant was aged about 51 years, she is entitled for 10% of the future prospects for her income. Since the claimant has failed to place any authenticated or reliable documents to prove the income, the Tribunal has notionally considered the income at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month which is also requires to be enhanced for the reason that, as per the chart of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, accident for the year 2014 income of Rs.8,500/- is to be taken. The injured was aged about 51 years, the appropriate multiplier would be '11'. Thus, under the head of future loss of income, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,83,866/- (Rs.8,500+ 10%= Rs.9,350 X 12 X 11 X 23%). 7. Considering the nature of injuries and the period underwent by the claimant in hospital, under the head pain and sufferings, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- which requires enhancement of another Rs.30,000/- i.e., Rs.60,000/-. Under the head of loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- which also requires to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant was hospitalised for 18 days considering the nature of the injuries, the three months income has to be awarded to the appellant for the loss of income during laid up period i.e., Rs.8,500X3=Rs.25,500/-. The conveyance and nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 has to be retained. For future medical expenses the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000. The same has to be retained. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,62,797/- under the head medical expenses. The same is also undisturbed. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,52,163/- as against Rs.6,09,800/- with 6% interest on the enhanced compensation. 8. As discussed supra, though it is proved before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, in such circumstances, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWAGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 298, the Tribunal is liable to make good the compensation amount, however liberty is given to recover the same from the owner. Placing reliance on the judgment, the order of the Tribunal is modified and the insurance company is directed to make good the compensation to the appellant, however, liberty is given to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34036 MFA No. 719 of 2020 the insurance company to recover the same from the owner thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal allowed in part. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29