- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 314/2016 BETWEEN: T S SIDDARAJU S/O BADDI SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O THAGGAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA-TQ & DIST-571 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S SRINIVAS S/O SAMPANGIAPPA, TVS BALLUR, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL-TQ, ATTIBELE.S.O, BANGALORE-562 106. 2. THE MANAGER CHORAMANDALAM .M.S, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NO9/1 ULSOORA ROAD, BANGALORE-42. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD: 23.02.2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.529/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE *SR.DN.) MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 273/2016 BETWEEN: MARIGOWDA S/O DODDAIDEGOWDA @ SERAMARA SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O THAGGAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA-TQ & DIST-571 401. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S SRINIVAS S/O SAMPANGIAPPA, TVS BALLUR,ATTIBELE, ANEKAL-TQ, ATTIBELE.S.O, BANGALORE-562 106. 2. THE MANAGER CHORAMANDALAM M.S., GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.9/1, ULSOORA ROAD, BANGALORE-42. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.528/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.07.2026 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 These appeals are filed against the common award dated 03.10.2012 passed in M.V.C. Nos.529 of 2009 and 528 of 2009 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (SR.DN.) and MACT, Mandya passed. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 3. The manner of accident shows that on 05.04.2009, both the petitioners were travelling in a bullock cart. At that time one, TVS Canter truck bearing Reg.No.KA-34/4099 came - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bullock cart. As a result, both of them sustained grievous injuries and shifted to Government Hospital at Mandya. Respondent No.1, in his counter, stated that policy was in force as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 stated that the liability is only on compliance of the terms of policy and subject to valid and effective driving licence of the driver. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of the TVS Canter truck in Crime No.161 of 2009. Respondent No.2 in his argument stated that respondent No.1 has not contested the case and has not entered into the witness box and not produced any relevant documents like RC, FC and insurance particulars. Respondent No.2 examined R.Ws.1 and 2. It is stated that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.1 knowing fully well allowed his driver to drive the vehicle and violated the terms of the policy. As such, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Exhibit R1 is the policy. As per Ex.R.2, the driver Rajesh was permitted to drive only private vehicles and not eligible to drive MGV. Exhibit R2 is the letter given by RTO, Neelagiris, Ooty. It shows that when Rajesh was issued driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 Exhibit R4 is Form No. 4 issued by RTO, Tamil Nadu in favour of the driver. It shows that the driver had DL to drive LMV type vehicles. 4. The Tribunal extracted several citations and also held that the meaning of light motor vehicle is vehicle with unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 kilograms and finally, stated that petitioners failed to discharge the burden. As such, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle was liable and directed to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a citation in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance company Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668, in which it is stated as follows: “Definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with S.10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that ‘light motor vehicle’ is also a ‘transport vehicle’, gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs. As specified in provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 specified in S.2(21) of Act. Provision of Section 3 of Act requires that a person in order to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, unladen weight of which, as case may be does not exceed 7500 kg. Insertion of ‘transport vehicle’ category in S.10(2) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of class of light motor vehicle.” “The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” Therefore, this Court finds that insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. M.F.A.No.273 of 2016 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.528 of 2009. The injured met with an accident on 05.04.2009 and filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that the Tribunal granted meagre compensation though he sustained fracture to his right clavical bone and other injuries and admitted as inpatient for a period of 10 days. Thus, requested for enhancement of compensation. It is stated by the claimant that 1st respondent filed written statement, but he has not produced any documents and failed to examine the driver of the vehicle and simply stated that the driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the burden is on the second respondent to prove the same. But, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the first respondent and it is to be set aside. 8. Further, there is no dispute regarding the insurance policy. The policy was in force as on the date of accident. Petitioner sustained 20% disability to his right upper limb, but it was not considered by the Tribunal. It is stated that petitioner was doing agriculture and cart hiring. He sustained - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 lacerated wound on his left temporal region, fracture to his right clavical bone, and other injuries on other parts of the body. He took treatment as an inpatient for 6 days. He was treated with antibiotics. He spent Rs.1829-80/- towards medical and hospital charges. The Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- which was global compensation for the injuries sustained by him and also granted Rs.10,000/- for suffering loss of cows in the alleged accident. 9. Considering the nature of occupation, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.20,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner and Rs.20,000/- for the loss of cows in the accident. In all, the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. M.F.A.No.314 of 2016 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.529 of 2009. The injured met with an accident on 05.04.2009 and filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 compensation of Rs.46,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 11. In this case, the petitioner sustained lacerated wound on his left temporal region, fracture to his right clavical bone, and other injuries on other parts of the body. He was taken to Mandya District Hospital, he took treatment as inpatient from 5.4.2009 till 14.4.2009, i.e. for a period of 10 days. He further stated that he spent Rs.11,000/- towards bullock cart repair charges. He examined the doctor, who stated that on examination, he found that the petitioner sustained the aforementioned injuries and he is suffering from 20% disability to the right upper limb. The petitioner has not produced out patient slips to show that he was taking treatment as an outpatient regularly even after discharge. He has taken treatment with PW3. On 16.11.2010, it was suggested that petitioner has not sustained any open fracture and no surgery was conducted and fracture was not united as per the X-ray, but he denied the same. Exhibit P11 is the wound certificate. As per the wound certificate, he sustained - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 one simple injury to the temporal region and grievous injury on his right clavicle bone. 12. Considering the medical evidence on record, this Court finds that it is reasonable to take one third of 20% disability i.e. 7%. Though petitioner has stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, he has no filed any income proof. Considering the fact that he met with an accident in the year 2009, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.5,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 38 years and the relevant multiplier is 15. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.63,000/- (5,000 x 12 x 15 x 7%). Petitioner sustained one fracture only and was admitted in hospital for a period of 10 days. Considering, the nature of injuries, occupation, period of hospitalizations and other relevant factors, this court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 a period of 2 months due to the injury sustained in the accident. Therefore, loss of income during laid up period comes to Rs.10,000/-. He incurred Rs.3,283/- towards medical expenses as per Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P13. Therefore, the said amount is granted under the head medical expenses. The Tribunal also granted Rs.5,000/- towards cart repair charges and the said amount is confirmed. So, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,41,283/-. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,41,283/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of future income 63,000/- 2. Medical expenses 3,283/- 3. Pain and Suffering 30,000/- 4. Loss of amenities 15,000/- 5. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 15,000/- 6. Loss of earning during the laid up period 10,000/- 7. cart repair charges 5,000/- Total 1,41,283/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 14. As already discussed in this judgment, the respondent insurance company is liable for pay and recovery. 15. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Both the appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The claimant in MFA No.273 of 2016 is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and the claimant in MFA No.314 of 2016 is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.141,283/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the aforementioned compensation in the respective appeals within one month from the date of this order. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35865 MFA No. 314 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 273 of 2016 (iv) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. (v) Insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55