- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5526 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RANGA NAYAKA S/O SRI KIRIYANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: COOLIE (LOADER & UNLOADER) R/A NO.55, KORATIKERE LAMBANIHATTI JAGALUR TLAUK DAVANAGERE-577 002 PRESENT ADDRESS: D/O NO.12, GRAMATANA BANDEPALYA, BENGALORE SOUTH BANALORE-560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HALANAIK S/O SRI. HERYANAIK KORATIKERE LAMBANIHATTI GUTI DURGA (POST) JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE-577 002. 2. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.135/5, 15TH CROSS J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BANGALORE-78. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD: 12.09.2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.4569/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER,MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.08.2026 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 10.06.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in MVC No.4569 of 2012. 2. Injured claimant met with an accident on 05.07.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,52,000/- with interest rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation and directed respondent No.1-owner to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the award. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant-petitioner preferred this appeal and mainly contended that Tribunal granted meagre amounts under the other heads. He sustained fracture injuries, which are grievous in nature. He was aged 41 years working as a coolie (loader and un-loader) and earning Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of the accident. The Tribunal erred in fixing the liability upon respondent No.1, who is owner of the offending vehicle, and ought to have fixed liability on insurer of the vehicle as per the insurance contract and thus, requested the court to modify the order. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The manner of accident shows that, on 05.07.2012, while petitioner was traveling as a coolie (loader and un-loader) in a Tata ACE bearing No.KA-17-A-8175, the driver of the Tata ACE driven it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. It is stated that he was aged 41 years and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and examined a - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 doctor as PW2 and not examined any eyewitness. Respondent No.2-insurance company examined RW1. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. 6. Respondent No.2 stated that driver of the vehicle has no valid driving licence, but they issued policy to the offending vehicle and it was valid as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2-insurance company has mainly contended that owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy and allowed the person to travel in his vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The seating capacity of the vehicle is only 1 + 1. At the time of accident, there were 13 persons travelling in the vehicle and it is overloaded and thus, he allowed more than seating capacity and he clearly violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Police filed charge sheet under Section 94(1) r/w 177 of MV Act against respondent No.1. Moreover, the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving licence. He was authorized to drive LMV (NT), but the vehicle involved in the accident was LGV and to drive the said vehicle, it requires proper endorsement from the concerned RTO. On that - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 ground alone, they are not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that owner of the vehicle has not complied with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the MV Act and have not informed about the accident. 7. Respondent No.2-insurance company examined its Assistant Manager as RW1 and also filed copy of the policy under Exhibit R1, copy of ‘B’ extract as Exhibit R2 and copy of the DL as Exhibit R3. As per Exhibit R1-policy copy, the limitation as to the use is mentioned as follows: The policy covers the use of vehicle for any purpose other than :(f) use for carrying passengers in vehicle except employees not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of workmen’s compensation Act 1923. 8. PW1 has clearly stated, in his evidence, that he was going in the auto as a passenger by paying Rs.3.00/- hire charge for his work. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that petitioner was travelling in the vehicle on hire charge and he has not filed any material to show that he was going on the vehicle as a loader or unloader, and even respondent No.1 in his written statement has not stated that he allowed the petitioner to travel in the goods vehicle as a loader - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 or unloader, and thus, it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated that the driver has no valid driving licence. The petitioner was travelling in a vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. As such, the insurance company was exonerated from paying the liability and it was held that respondent No.1-owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has already discussed the issue at length and exonerated the insurance company and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that petitioner was working as a coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. But, he has not filed any income proof. He met with an accident in the year 2012. Therefore, this Court finds it 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 41 years and the relevant multiplier is 14. Petitioner filed Exhibit P7-wound certificate, Exhibit P8- discharge summaries and also examined the doctor as PW2. PW2-doctor stated as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 “Degloving injury left hand, oblique fracture distal radius and ulna of left forearm, fracture of bases of 2nd, 4th and 5th metacarpals left hand with intraarticular extension operation of debridement and secondary suturing done on 11.07.2012 and discharged on 18.07.2012. So he assessed the disability of left upper limb at 29.5% and 10% to the whole body. He also stated that radiological examination revealed old fracture of distal end of radius noted, old fracture of bases of 4th and 5th metacarpal bones of left hand with mal-union. He also produced Ex-P11-outpatient record and Ex- P12-one x-ray film.” 10. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take the 1/3rd of 29.5% disability i.e. 10%. So the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.1,17,600/- (7,000 x 12 x 14 x 10%). The petitioner was admitted in the hospital for a period of 9 days. Considering his occupation, nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 4 months due to the injury sustained in the accident. Therefore, Rs.28,000/- (7,000 x 4) is granted under the head loss of income during laid up period. The Tribunal has - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 already granted medical expenses of Rs.12,056/- as per Exhibit P9-bills and the same is confirmed. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,47,656/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.1,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of future income 1,17,600/- 2. Medical expenses 12,056/- 3. Pain and Suffering 40,000/- 4. Loss of amenities 20,000/- 5. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 30,000/- 6. Loss of earning during the laid up period 28,000/- Total 2,47,656/- 12. As insurance company has already been exonerated from paying the liability, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010207222014 NC: 2026:KHC:47675 MFA No. 5526 of 2014 13. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. The Claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.2,47,656/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.2,47,656/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61