HARSHA CHALUVE GOWDA vs THE BRANCH MANAGER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5227 OF 2023 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4762 OF 2023 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 5227/2023:
BETWEEN:
RAVI
S/O RACHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT BEVINAKERE BEEDI,
CHAMALAPURADAHUNDI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570038.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HARSHA CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O LATE H.C. SRINIVASA,
MAJOR, R/AT 1209, 3RD CROSS,
OPP. BALABHAVANA PARK,
ASHOK NAGARA,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, BLOCK-2A,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
ESQUIRE CENTRE, NO.9, M.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.R.S. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2023, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1265/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MACT, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 4762/2023:
BETWEEN:
HARSHA CHALUVE GOWDA
S/O LATE H.C. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1209, 3RD CROSS,
OPP BALABHAVANA PARK,
ASHOKNAGAR, MANDYA TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.R. SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFC ERGO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
2ND FLOOR, BLOCK 2A
ESQUIRE CENTRE
NO.9, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
2. RAVI
S/O RACHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BEVINAKERE BEEDHI
CHAMALAPURADA HUNDI,
NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.Y. SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2023 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1265/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, NANJANGUD, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,30,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6
PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. MFA Nos.5227/2023 and 4762/2023 are filed
under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, ‘M.V. Act’) by the appellant/claimant and the owner,
respectively, challenging the judgment and award dated
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
13.06.2023 passed in M.V.C. No.1265/2017, on the file of
the MACT and Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT,
Nanjangud (in short, ‘the Tribunal’). The appellant seeks
enhancement of the compensation; whereas the owner is
challenging the liability in their respective appeal.
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal in
nutshell is that he sustained injuries in the road traffic
accident that has taken place on 14.07.2017 at about
02.50.p.m., involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA27/K-
8489 and a private bus bearing Reg.No.KA-11/B-2243
near Nestle Factory at Industrial area at Kathwadipura
circle. Due to the accident, the claimant being the rider of
the motorcycle has sustained grievous injuries. He has
taken treatment in Government hospital, Nanjangudu and
in other hospitals. Hence, he claimed the compensation
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
under different heads from the owner and insurance
Company of the offending bus.
4. After service of notice, respondent No.1 filed his
objection statement wherein he denied the averments
made in the petition and contended that there is no nexus
between the vehicle of respondent No.1 and the injuries
sustained by the petitioner. The bus is validly insured with
respondent No.2 and it is having value permit as on the
date of accident and driver was holding valid driving
licence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Respondent No.2 - the insurance Company has
filed its objections wherein it denied the averments made
toto
in the petition in except admitting the validity of
insurance policy as on the date of accident and contended
that its liability is limited to the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy.
6. After framing issues, recording evidence and
hearing arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
that the claimant is entitled for total compensation

`
of 1,29,980/- under following heads:
1 Pain and sufferings `90,000 /-
2 Incidental charges `10,000/-
Loss of income during
3 `16,980 /-
treatment period
Loss of amenities &
4 `10,000/-
expectations
`3,000
5 Conveyance /-
Total `1,29,980/- `1,29,980/-
`1,29,980/- `1,29,980/-
7. Not satisfied with the aforesaid compensation,
challenging the liability fastened on the owner, the
claimant and owner are before this Court.
8. Heard arguments of both sides.
9. The learned counsel for the owner Sri
B.R.S.Gupta would submit that there was valid permit to
drive the bus within Mandya district and the owner has
produced documents in that regard. However, the accident
has taken place in the neighboring district Mysuru near
Nanjanagudu which is just by the side of Mandya district.
Hence, there is no violation of permit conditions. Hence,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
directing the insurance Company to pay compensation and
recover the same from the owner is not proper.
10. In this regard, he places reliance on the
judgment of division bench of this Court in Rehanna
1
Begum v/s Branch Manager and Others .
11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Sri
D Vijayakumar would submit that without valid route
permit if the vehicle is brought on road, it amounts to
fundamental breach of terms of the insurance policy.
Hence, the order of the Tribunal directing pay and
recovery is appropriate and it requires no interference.
12. In this regard, he places reliance on the
judgment of division bench of this Court in Syed Zaheer
2
v/s Smt. Puttamadamma and Another .
13. The learned counsel for the claimant Sri
Sreenivasan M.Y would submit that the claimant aged
about 32 years has sustained fracture of left ankle in the
1
MFA No.5960/2015 c/w MFA No.706/2013 dd 27.07.2021
2
MFA No.5745/2016 c/w MFA No.4811/2016 dd 07.12.2023
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
accident. The doctor assessed disability of 30% to left
lower limb, but it was not considered by the Tribunal. Even
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads
is on lower side. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the
compensation.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
insurance Company would further submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and it requires no interference. The Tribunal
has assigned cogent reasons for not considering the
disability, which requires no interference.
15. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the appeal papers and the trial Court records, the points
that arise for consideration are:
" 1. Whether the issuance of direction to
insurance Company to pay and recover the same
from the owner in the absence of valid route
permit by the Tribunal is erroneous?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?"
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
16. Finding of this Court on the point No.1 is in
Negative and point No.2 is in Affirmative for the
following:
REASONS
17. The established facts before the Tribunal are
that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic
accident involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA27/K-
8489 and a private bus bearing Reg.No.KA-11/B-2243
near Nestle Factory at Industrial area at Kathwadipura
circle. Amongst those injuries, lacerated wound on left foot
over second, third and fourth toe was considered as
grievous in nature. X-ray shows left ankle and fourth Meta
tarsal bone is fractured and undisplaced.
18. The claimant was in-patient in the hospital for 4
days. The doctor has issued the disability certificate as per
Ex.P.14 and examined as PW2. In his evidence, the doctor
has stated that there is pain on left ankle joint and there is
some restriction on movement of left feet. In this regard,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
in the cross-examination, the doctor has deposed that the
fractured bone is united and he admitted that the claimant
is still working with the contractor in the same factory in
which he was working.
19. The claimant in his affidavit evidence stated
that he has no employment but in the cross-examination
categorically deposed that he is working under the
contractor under whom he was working prior to the
accident. He admitted that he has taken free treatment in
Government hospital, Nanjanagudu.
20. Considering this evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the
Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that even though
the doctor assessed disability at 30%, there is no
functional disability to the claimant and thus, he is not
entitled for any compensation under the head 'loss of
future earning capacity due to disability'.
21. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
the head 'loss of income during treatment period' at
` 16,980/-. But considering the nature of injuries sustained
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
by the claimant, he requires at least 3 months rest and
`
thus, his income shall be taken at 11,000/- and not
`
8,500/- per month as taken by the Tribunal. Hence, the
`
claimant is entitled for 33,000/- under this head.
22. As far as 'loss of amenities' is concerned, the
claimant is entitled for additional `2 0,000/-.
23. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation towards 'food, diet and nourishment
charges' for which, the claimant is entitled for ` 7,000/-
under said head.
24. As far as 'pain and sufferings', 'conveyance' and
'incidental expenses' heads are concerned, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable, does not require interference.
25. Hence, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of ` ` ` ` 1,73,000/- under following heads:
1 Pain and sufferings `90,000 /-
2 Incidental charges `10,000/-
Loss of income during
3 `33,000 /-
treatment period
4 Loss of amenities & `30,000/-
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
expectations
5 Conveyance `3,000 /-
Food, Diet, and
6 `7,000 /-
Nourishment charges
Total `1,73,000/- `1,73,000/- `1,73,000/- `1,73,000/-
26. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that
there was no valid route permit as on the date of accident
to the bus and thereby, directed the insurance Company
to pay the compensation and recover the same from
respondent No.1 as per law. Aggrieved by fastening the
liability on the owner, the owner is before this Court.
27. In the Judgment of Amrit Paul Singh and
another v/s Tata AIG India General Insurance Co.
3
Ltd and in Nagendra v/s The New India Insurance
4
Co. Ltd. & Ors., the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that
when there is no valid route permit to the bus or the
goods vehicle, then it amounts to breach of conditions of
policy and insurance Company may not be liable to satisfy
the decree but considering that the claimant is a third
3
AIR 2018 SC 2662
4
2025 INSC 1270
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
party, insurance Company shall be directed to pay the
compensation and recover the same from the owner.
28. By placing reliance on the judgment of Pappu
5
and Others v/s Vinodkumar Lamba and another ,
and National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Swaran
6
Singh and Others case, the division bench of this Court
has passed the similar judgment in Syed Zaheer 's case
cited supra. These judgments were not produced before
the division Bench of this Court in Rehanna Begum's
case cited supra. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
binds this Court. Hence, considering the principle laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Paul's case and
Nagendra's case cited supra, this Court holds that the
direction of the Tribunal to the insurance Company to pay
the compensation and recover the same from owner
requires no interference.
29. Hence, this Court passes the following:
5
(2018) 3 SCC 208
6
(2004) 3 SCC 297
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
ORDER
i) MFA No.5227/2023 filed by the claimant
under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is allowed in part .
ii) MFA No.4762/2023 filed by owner of the
vehicle under Section 173(1) is dismissed.
iii) The judgment and award dated 13.06.2023
passed in M.V.C. No.1265/2017, on the file
of the MACT and Senior Civil Judge & JMFC
& MACT, Nanjangudu is modified holding
that claimant is totally entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,73,000/- instead
of Rs.1,29,980/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
iv) The e nhanced compensation shall carry
interest at 6% per annum.
v) Respondent No.2 - the insurance Company
shall initially pay the compensation to the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58405
MFA No. 5227 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 4762 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010389072023
claimant and then recover the same from
respondent No.1 - the owner in the same
proceedings.
vi) No order as to costs.
vii) Draw modified award accordingly.
viii) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
ix) In view of disposal of the appeal, the
pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
x) The amount in deposit be transmitted to
the Tribunal and shall be adjusted towards
the amount being payable by the owner.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SPV
CT:SM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23