- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8391 OF 2022 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 8391/2022 BETWEEN: ABDUL RASOOL, S/O ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.265, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DARGA MOHALLA, VIJINAPURA,DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SMT.SULASA T.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S.DEEPAK, S/O. R.SHIVANNA, MAJOR, NO.P56, 4TH MAIN, "C" BLOCK, MARIYAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 021. 2. THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 NOTICE TO R-1 IS SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.27.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1642/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-11). IN MFA NO. 665/2021 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GIC LTD., NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR, SHANKARA NARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGLAURU-01. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL RASOOL S/O ABDUL BASHEER, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.265, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DARGA MOHALLA, VIJINAPURA DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BANGALORE. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 2. S.DEEPAK S/O R.SHIVANNA NO.P56, 4TH MAIN, C BLOCK, MARIYAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE-560021 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SULASA T.J., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1642/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH- 11), (SCCH-25). THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 27.12.2019 passed in MVC No.1642/2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-1) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.9,60,640/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that, on 16.12.2016, the claimant was riding a Honda Aviator motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-14-EJ-5864, with his wife, Smt. Nazeema Banu, as a pillion rider, from Banawara towards Bengaluru on National Highway No.206. When they reached near Kamagondanahalli Gate, Tumakuru Taluk, the rider of a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-L- 6570, who was proceeding from the Tumakuru side, allegedly driven the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's motorcycle. Due to which, the claimant fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Gubbi, where first aid treatment was given. Thereafter, he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, for further treatment. During the course of treatment, he underwent surgery, and on 19.01.2017, his right leg was amputated below the knee. Hence, he filed claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 3. Tribunal upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged by the claimant in MFA No.8391/2022 as well as Insurance Company in MFA No.665/2021. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. The appellant–Insurance Company in MFA No.665/2021 contends that the Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to make good the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the rider of the offending motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Therefore, according to the appellant, the question of applying the principle of "pay and recover" does not arise, and the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation under various heads without proper appreciation - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 of the evidence on record. The Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum, whereas, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.5896/2018, the appropriate rate of interest ought to have been 6% per annum. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by dismissing the appeal filed by the claimant. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant in MFA No.8391/2022 contended that the Tribunal, after meticulously appreciating the entire evidence available on record, has rightly directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. She further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability of the claimant at only 40%, despite the fact that his right leg was amputated below the knee, resulting in 100% functional disability. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation under various other heads. Hence, she seeks enhancement of the compensation - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, she prays to enhance the compensation by dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire materials on record. 8. As could be gathered from records, the occurrence of accident in question and coverage of the Insurance policy for the offending motorcycle are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the offending motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-L- 6570, to that effect, the claimant produced investigation documents. Further, on perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award, it is noticed that the Tribunal, while considering the liability of the Insurance Company, has held that in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of "Pappu Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another", reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, and "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others", reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, and the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Yallavva and anr. reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2239, since the rider of the offending motorcycle was not holding a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. However, in the operative portion of the impugned Judgment and Award, the Tribunal has failed to incorporate the said direction. It appears that the omission has occurred inadvertently, particularly when the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the said issue in the preceding paragraphs and recorded a finding regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to pay and recover. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, since the rider of the offending motorcycle was not possessing a driving licence at all, the entire liability ought to have been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company should have been exonerated, cannot be accepted in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Pappu, Swaran Singh, and the judgment of this Court in the case of Yallavva stated supra. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 The said principles have also been consistently followed by this Court in catena of judgments. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the claimant's right leg below the knee was amputated on 19.01.2017 during the course of treatment. In order to substantiate the same, the claimant has examined the Doctor as PW.2 and has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P2, discharge summary at Ex.P7 and other relevant medical records including Ex.P14. On careful perusal of Ex.R4 the impression of the Doctor, reads as under: "Right eye retinoblastoma with complete loss of vision in right eye with diminution of vision in left eye with 75% of disability" 10. I have also perused the photographs of the claimant as per Exs.P18 to P26, which clearly reveals amputation of right leg of the claimant and the movement of the claimant was restricted and he can move only with the help of stretcher. Further it is clear that in view of the accident he is unable to continue his work. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 11. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2-Doctor, and the certificates stated supra, I am of the considered view that the claimant sustained 100% functional disability. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in considering 40% disability. 12. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.8,000/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016, would be Rs.9,500/-. Since the disability is considered at 100%, in view of law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.103807/2016 and connected with other matter and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sidram vs. United India 2023 (3) SCC 439, the future prospectus of 25% is added to the income. Hence, the income would be at Rs.11,875/- (Rs.9,500 + 25%). 13. As the claimant was aged 43 years, a multiplier of '14' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,95,000/- (Rs.11,875 x 12 x 14 x 100%) towards 'loss of future income'. 14. Since the claimant's permanent disability has been assessed at 100% and compensation has already been awarded under the head of 'loss of future income,' he is not entitled for separate compensation towards loss of income during the laid- up period. 15. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, as against the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Having regard to the length of the stay of the claimant in the hospital, the claimant would also be entitled to 'Conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges' at - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 Rs.1,50,000/- as against the sum of Rs.13,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, as against the sum of Rs.85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. The sum awarded as medical expenses at Rs.1,46,600/-, being based on documentary evidence, do not call for modification and hence confirmed. 20. The sums awarded under other heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal, remains unaltered. 21. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 2. Medical expenses 1,46,600 3. Food, attendant, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc. 1,50,000 4. Loss of earning capacity 19,95,000 5. Loss of amenities in life 50,000 6. Future medical expenses 1,00,000 Total 25,41,600 22. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.25,41,600/- as against Rs.9,06,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However he is not entitled for the interest for the delay period of 259 days. 23. The Tribunal has erred while awarding interest to the compensation. As per the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.5896/2018 the rate of interest to be awarded shall be 6%. Hence the same is reduced to 6% as against 9% awarded by the Tribunal. 24. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572072022 NC: 2026:KHC:40750 MFA No. 8391 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 665 of 2021 date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 in MFA No.8391/2022. 25. Out of the compensation amount a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to be deposited in the nationalized bank in fixed deposit, the claimant and other family members are entitled to claim the periodical interest once in a three months. 26. Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23