- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8420 OF 2016 (MV- I) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGARAJ S/O LATE PILLACHARI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.18/4, 1ST B CROSS, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-54. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. V. ANOOP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHOLA MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.135/5, 2ND FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, J. P. NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE-78. 2. SURESH H. P. S/O HANUMAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT: PAKKEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, HESSARAGHATTA HOBLI, ABBIGERE, BANGALORE-90. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-2 SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY AND DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY THE Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 COMPENSATION AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS. 4,44,000/- TO RS. 15,00,000/- AWARDED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, (SCCH-18), IN MVC: 2315/2014, DATED 30.05.2016, WITH COST AND INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 30.05.2016 passed in MVC No.2315/2014 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, 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 CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 21.03.2014 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Tribunal considering entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.4,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company on the ground of breach of conditions of the policy committed by the owner of the vehicle, but the appellant is a third party as per Section 149 of the IMV Act and thus Company is primarily liable to pay the compensation. The vehicle involved in the accident is a tractor and trailer, which is a goods vehicle and the driver who committed the accident is having - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 driving licence apart from LMV vehicle to drive transport vehicle and PSV bus, and thus contended that he has valid driving license. Tribunal granted meager amounts under the other heads. Doctor assessed the disability as 22% to the whole body and also stated that he requires another surgery for removal of the implants which amounts to Rs.30,000/-, but the amount granted by the tribunal for future medical expenses is meager. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides. 6. The manner of accident shows that on 21.03.2014 when petitioner was walking by the side of the road and reached near Byaladakere road, the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-A-6782 and KA- 06-A-6783, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. As a result, he fell down and sustained grevious injuries. He was aged 50 years working as a mason and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. After - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 issuance of the notice, respondent No.1 appeared before the court and filed statement of objection. But, respondent No.2 did not appear before the court and was set ex-parte. Respondent No.1 admitted the issuance of the policy and stated that their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further stated that the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and thus it is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and they are not liable to pay the compensation. Ex.P1 is the copy of the complaint given after 7 days of the accident. In the history, it was mentioned that ‘RTA at around 04.00 p.m., on 21.03.2014 near Byaladakere road’. The petitioner filed Exs.P1 to P6 to prove the involvement of the vehicle and charge sheet is also filed against the driver of the tractor and trailer. As such, tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer. It is mainly contended that respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.1 is the insurer of the tractor - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-A-6782 and KA-06-A- 6783. Ex.R3 is the copy of the policy. 7. Respondent No.1 contended that the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving license and owner handed over the vehicle without verifying the same and thus violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Insurance Company examined their superintendent as RW1 and he filed Ex.R1 and R2, as per the copy of the driving license extract, the driver of the tractor and trailer has no valid driving license. It appears that the driver had driving licence to drive LMV transport vehicle and PSV bus, but there is no specific endorsement in the driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer. As such, the tribunal held that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon citation in 2025 SCC Online SC 1027 in case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Vs Honnamma and Ors, in which it was held as follows, - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 “The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory Liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible.” 9. Learned counsel also relied upon citation in Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and argued that unladen weight of offending vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. Both the counsel for petitioner and respondent has not placed any evidence to show, what is the exact unladen weight of the tractor and trailer, perusal of the copy of the policy under Ex.R3 shows that the model of the vehicle is ‘MF 1035’ with variant No 1035 DI, on verifying the same, the unladen weight of the said model combined with both the tractor and trailer is between 2513 kgs to 2913 kgs and it is definitely less than 7500 kgs. In view of the above citation, this Court finds that the driving licence of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 the driver of the offending vehicle is valid and effective, as on the date of accident and the policy was in existence and thus respondent No.1/Insurance Company has to indemnify respondent No.2. The tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company and this court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. Therefore, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount. 10. Though he stated that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a mason, he has not filed any income. As he met with an accident in the year 2014, this Court finds it is reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.8,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the relevant multiplier is ‘13’. 11. The petitioner filed Ex.P5/wound certificate, Exs.P7 and P8/discharge summaries and also inpatient and outpatient record. Apart from that, he examined the doctor. PW3 is an orthopedic surgeon and stated as below, - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 Open (Compound) Type III-B segmental fracture of shaft of tibia and fibula of left leg. Operation's done:- i. Wound debridement open reduction and IEF (Ilizarov -external fixator) application for left tibia. ii. Debridement and SSG (Split skin grafting) done on date 22-3-2014. iii. IEF readjustment done on 23-4-2014 and discharged on 28-4-2014. SECOND ADMISSION done on 28-10-2014 operation of bone grafting and IEF readjustment done on discharged on 15-11-2014. Cannot stand, walk and bear weight on left leg (5) cannot sit cross legged, to squat, (to use Indian toilet) (4+5) cannot climb up and down the stair case (4), cannot walk on the plain surface (3), cannot walk on slope (3), cannot kneel (4), always limps and walks with the support of the walker or attendants or with 2 axillary crutches. Radiological examination revealed the following: Fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg shows GAP NON UNION with IEF in situ in tibia. IEF removed after achieving complete union (Correction of Nonunion) of fractures of tibia and fibula by appropriate procedures. 12. Further assessed disability as 45.3% to the left lower limb and 22.65% to the whole body. It is further stated that they advised him to get IEF removed after achieving complete union of fracture of tibia and fibula by - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 appropriate procedure. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to consider 1/3rd of 45% which comes to 15%. Hence, the loss of the future earning capacity is Rs.8,500 x 12 x 13 x 15% = Rs.1,98,900/-. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital for a period of 58 days, as per the discharge summaries. This court finds it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.40,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 6 months. Therefore, Rs.8,500 x 6 = Rs.51,000/- is to be granted under the head loss of income during laid up period. As the doctor simply stated that he requires another surgery and not estimated the cost of the surgery. Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses and also granted Rs.1,08,000/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P8 and the said amounts are confirmed. Hence, the total compensation comes to - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010480562016 NC: 2026:KHC:49061 MFA No. 8420 of 2016 Rs.5,02,900/-. Hence, the amount is enhanced from Rs.4,44,000/- to Rs.5,02,900/-. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Insurance company/respondent No.1 is directed to deposit Rs.5,02,900/- with interest rate of 6% within one month from the date of the order. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3 CT:SI