SAZIDA S/O MOHAMADSAB NADAF vs JAVEEDAHMED S/O MEHBOOBSAB SHAIK

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101254 OF 2022 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SAZIDA S/O. MOHAMADSAB NADAF
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: CLEANER,
R/O: MALAPUR ONI,
HALBHAVI GALLI,
DHARWAD-580008.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. M. NAIKWADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. JAVEEDAHMED S/O. MEHBOOBSAB SHAIK
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING KA-25/C-5718,
R/O: H.NO.8, JANATA PLOTS,
KOPPADKERI,
DHARWAD-580008.

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SRINIVAS TALKIES COMPLEX,
FIRST FLOOR, MARKET,
DHARWAD-580008.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE
PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR, BY SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN MVC
NO.21/2014 DATED 25.09.2018 AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT, PASSED BY I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD AT DHARWAD, WITH COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021


THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25.09.2018
in MVC No.21/2014 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil
1
Judge and CJM, Dharwad , the petitioner before the Tribunal
filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2012 the
petitioner was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing
2
registration No.KA-25/C-5718 , which belongs to respondent
No.1. It was directed by the respondent No.1 to go to Mumbai
from Dharwad along with vegetables in the said lorry, and the
said lorry met with an accident near Khandal on P.B. Road due
to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and the
petitioner fell down from the lorry and sustained grievous

1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘lorry’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021


injuries. The petitioner immediately shifted to the hospital for
treatment.

4. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and
earning Rs.6,000/- per month by getting wages doing cleaner
work in the said lorry. Due to accidental injuries, the petitioner
is unable to work as earlier and became unemployed and spent
huge amount towards medical expenses. Accordingly, he filed a
claim petition claiming compensation before the Tribunal.

5. On filing of the petition, notices have been issued to
the respondents. Respondent No.1 remained absent and hence,
placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel
and filed objections denying the entire case of the petitioner. It
is further contended that the petition is false, frivolous,
vexatious and concocted one, as such, it is not maintainable
either on facts or in the eye of law. Further, the policy of the
lorry is not traced out and denied the coverage of policy.
Liability, if any, is subject to the conditions, exceptions,
limitations of policy in force as on the date of accident and the
validity and effective of driving license, RC, fitness certificate
and valid permit of the vehicle etc. The lorry is heavy goods
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021


vehicle as per permit of the said lorry. The respondent No.1
being the owner of the lorry has obtained goods carriage permit
to his vehicle to all routes in Karnataka State only and is not
suppose to run his vehicle beyond the jurisdiction of the
Karnataka State.

6. Respondent No.2 further contended that as per the
complaint and petition averments, the respondent No.1 has
sent his vehicle to unload the vegetable goods to Vasi Mumbai,
but as per the police records the alleged accident occurred
within the jurisdiction of Khandal, Dist. Satara, State Mumbai.
The driver of the lorry did not possess effective and valid
driving license as on the date of accident. It stated that the
respondent No.1 handed over the lorry and allowed a person to
drive his vehicle who not having driving license and thereby
violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The itness
certificate of the vehicle was also expired as on the date of
accident and the respondent No.2 is neither liable nor
responsible to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021



7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself examined
as PW1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.13. On
behalf of respondent No.2, two witnesses have been examined
as RW1 and RW2 and got marked Ex.R1 to R7.

8. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.46,450/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till payment. The Tribunal further held that, the
respondent No.1, who is the owner of the lorry is liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner and directed to deposit the
same within two months from the date of the order.

9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
petitioner preferred this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that t he
petitioner has produced the copy of temporary permit which is
valid from 16.08.2012 to 19.09.2012. The vehicle is covered
with valid insurance which is valid from 02.04.2012 to
01.04.2013 but, the Tribunal has not considered these
documents and directed respondent No.1/owner of the lorry to
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021


deposit the compensation and the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on the lower side. Accordingly, prayed for
enhancement of the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the owner of
the lorry as the permit has not been produced before the
Tribunal. There is no ground made out by the petitioner for
enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.

12. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the
liability on the respondent No.1/owner of the
lorry to pay the compensation?

(iii) What order?
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021



13. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) : In the Negative
Point No.(iii) : As per the final order, for the
following:

14. Regarding Point No.(i): The petitioner met with
an accident on 23.08.2012 and suffered grievous injuries and
he was treated as an inpatient from 23.08.2012 to 24.08.2012
i.e., for 2 days. Except producing the wound certificate, the
petitioner has not produced any document to show that he has
undergone operation and has not produced the discharge
summary, but he has produced the X-ray and medical bills.
There is no evidence to show that the petitioner suffered a
functional disability.

15. By considering the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and amount spent towards medical expenses, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and
suffering, which is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- .
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021



16. The wound certificate reveals that the petitioner has
suffered fracture and at least two months’ time is required for
him to recover. During that period, he was not able to work.
Hence, Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head of “loss of
income during laid up period”.

17. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.10,450/- under the head of “medical expenses” by
considering the medical bills and records, which does not call
for any interference.

18. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,000/- under the head of conveyance charges, Rs.1,000/-
under the head of attendant charges and Rs.2,000/- under the
head of food, nourishment and diet charges. This Court is of
the opinion that it is just and reasonable to award
compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the combined heads of
“food, diet, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges”.
In all compensation is awarded under the following heads:

Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Pain and suffering 25,000/-
2 Income during laid up period 20,000/-
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021


3 Medical expenses 10,450/-
4 Food, diet, nourishment,
attendant and conveyance
charges
10,000/-
Total 65,450/-


19. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.60,450/- as against Rs.46,450/- awarded
by the Tribunal.

20. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered partly in the
affirmative.

21. Point No.(ii): In this case, the offending
vehicle/lorry provided insurance document. The Tribunal has
overlooked the document. The petitioner has sustained injuries
in the accident, whether the permit is valid or not, it does not
come in the way of awarding compensation to the petitioner.
When the insurance is valid, it is up to the Insurance Company
to deposit the compensation amount and recover the same
from the owner.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021



22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rama Bai V.
3
M/s. Amit Minerals and Another at paragraph Nos.6 and 7
has held as under:
“6. In the present case as stated above, on the date
of accident, the driver had no valid license and the
licence was not renewed. The insurance company
was entitled to take a valid defence in that regard
under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) as the driver of the
offending vehicle was not duly licensed, to avoid its
liability to pay the compensation. The conditions in
law are satisfied to absolve the insurance company
from the payment of compensation.

6.1 . The High Court in the impugned judgment relied
upon the decision in Ram Babu Tiwari to find that as
per the specific provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
if the driver does not possess a valid and effective
driving licence, it results in a breach of conditions of
the insurance policy, exonerating the insurer from its
liability. But while affirming the order of the High
Court, absolving the liability for breach of conditions
in the policy, this Court refused to interfere with
orders of `pay and recover' as directed by the High
Court.

7. In the above circumstances, going by the series of
decisions of this Court, it is only proper that the
insurer be directed to satisfy the award, which

3
2025 SCC 2067
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021


however can be recovered by the insurer from the
insured -owner of the vehicle. The appeal stands
allowed.”

23. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire
compensation amount and it may recover from the owner of
the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1.

24. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in the
negative.

25. Point No.(iii) : In view of the findings on points
No.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is
entitled to receive compensation of
65,450/-
as against Rs.46,450/- awarded
by the Tribunal.

(iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
payment, excluding the period of delay of
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17206
MFA No. 101254 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020154262021


812 days in filing the appeal, as per the
order dated 29.08.2023.

(iv) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall
deposit the entire compensation amount
with accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this judgment
and then to recover the same from the
respondent No.1/owner of the lorry.

(v) Draw modified award accordingly.

(vi) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records
forthwith.

(vii) In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly
disposed of.

Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 31-10-2026

(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE


SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56