ANJINAPPA S/O HANMANTH GOURIPURAD vs SRI. NAGENDRA S/O KOTRESH G
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 105761 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ANJINAPPA S/O. HANMANTH GOURIPURAD,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: KENCHAMMANAHALLI,
TQ: HADAGALI,
NOW AT: KANCHINEGALUR
TQ: HANGAL
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NAGENDRA S/O. KOTRESH G.,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE
BEARING ITS
REGD.NO.KA-17/EY-7973
R/O: CHIGATERE,
TQ: HARAPANAHALLI
DIST: DAVANAGERE-583127.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET,
DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580029.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE LIABILITY FIXED
ON THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AND FASTENED THE LIABILITY ON
RESPONDENT NO.2 I.E., INSURANCE COMPANY AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.376/2021, ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HANGAL, AT: HANGAL, DATED
21.09.2024, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 21.09.2024
in MVC No.376/2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil
1
Judge and AMACT, Hangal , the petitioner before the Tribunal
filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and
challenging liability.
2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that
25.04.2020 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding
2
on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/EJ-1418 as a
1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘the motorcycle’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
pillion rider along with one Nagaraj. When they reached near
Chigateri village, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle
3
bearing registration No.KA-17/W-7973 came in a high speed,
rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and
regulations and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle and
caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell
down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately,
the petitioner was shifted to the hospital for treatment.
4. It is stated that, prior to the accident, he was hale
and healthy and earning Rs.20,000/- by doing agricultural work
as well as business. Due to the accidental injuries, the
petitioner has suffered mentally, physically and economically
and was unable to work as earlier. The petitioner has 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 did not appear before the
Court inspite of service of notice. Hence, placed exparte.
3
For short, ‘the offending vehicle’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
Respondent No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed
objections.
6. Respondent No.2 admitted the existence of
insurance policy and accident, but denied the age and income
of the petitioner and also denied the medical expenses borne
by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 contended that the police
have registered the false case against the offending vehicle
colluding with the petitioner, the rider of the motorcycle was
not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of
accident. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself examined
as PW1 and one witness examined as PW2 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P.1 to P.29. On behalf of respondent No.2,
one witness has been examined as RW1 and got marked
Exs.R1 to R3.
8. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part by awarding compensation to the
petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from
the date of petition till realization, and dismissed the claim
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
petition against respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The
Tribunal further held that the respondent No.1/owner of the
offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner
and directed to deposit the same within two months from the
date of this order. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
to the petitioner under the following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Pain and suffering 20,000/-
2 Medical expenses 54,731/-
3 Diet, nourishment, conveyance 20,000/-
and attendant charges
4 Loss of income during laid up 27,500/-
period
3,03,649.5/-
5 Loss of future income on
account of permanent physical
disability
6 Loss of amenities and 10,000/-
enjoyment of life
7 Future medical expenses 20,000/-
TOTAL 4,55,880.5/-
9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
petitioner filed this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
Tribunal on appreciating the evidence, awarded a compensation
of Rs.4,55,881/- which is on meager side; the treated doctor
assessed the disability to the extent of 50.2% to the right lower
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
limb but, the Tribunal assessed the disability to the extent of
16.73% to the whole body which is on the lower side; the
compensation awarded under other heads also on the lower
side; the rider of the offending vehicle was not having effective
driving license and the Tribunal directed the owner of the
offending vehicle to deposit the compensation. The Tribunal
ought to have directed the Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation, then recover the same from the owner.
11. In support of his contention, relied upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Singh Ram v.
4
Nirmala and Others and Shamanna and Another v.
5
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others .
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal
awarded reasonable compensation which does not call for
inference; the Tribunal awarded future medical expenses to the
petitioner though there is no sufficient evidence. Accordingly,
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
4
Civil Appeal No.2103/2018
5
(2018) 9 SCC 650
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
13. 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 respondent No.1/owner of the
offending vehicle to pay the compensation?
(iii) What order?
14. 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:
15. Regarding Point No.(i): In this case, the
accident is not in dispute, only the quantum of compensation
and liability is under challenge. The petitioner is treated as an
inpatient from 25.04.2020 to 04.05.2020 for the injuries
suffered in the accident. The medical report indicates that the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
petitioner has sustained abrasion over the left knee joint,
abrasion over the left wrist joint and swelling over the right
knee joint. The injury No.3 is grievous in nature.
16. The treated doctor, who examined the petitioner
has issued a disability certificate. The petitioner has undergone
surgery on 29.04.2020 with internal fixation and he was under
follow up treatment. The doctor assessed the disability to the
extent of 50.2%. The petitioner sustained communited distal
femur fracture to the right knee. By looking into the fracture
sustained by the petitioner and on appreciation of the evidence
of PW2/the doctor, this Court is of the opinion that, it is just
reasonable to assess the functional disability to the extent of
20% to the whole body.
17. The accident occurred in the year 2020. The
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the petitioner at
Rs.13,750/- per month by following the guidelines issued by
the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.
18. The petitioner was aged 54 years at the time of
accident. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
6
Corporation and another , the applicable multiplier would be
“11” . Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under
the head of “loss of future income” as under:
Rs.13,750/- X 12 X 11 X 20% = Rs.3,63,000/-
19. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.20,000/- under the head of “pain and suffering”. By looking
into the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the
opinion that, it is just and reasonable to enhance the same to
Rs.35,000/- under the said head.
20. Petitioner has sustained fracture in the accident.
This Court is of the opinion that the injuries sustained by the
petitioner definitely come in the way of his regular life and it
affects his comfort and enjoyment in life. Hence, compensation
of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of “loss of
amenities”.
21. The petitioner has sustained fracture of lower limb.
At least three months time is required for him to recover.
During that period he was not in a position to work. So, it is
6
2009 ACJ 1298
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
reasonable to award compensation of Rs.41,250/- under the
head of “loss of income during laid up period”.
22. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.54,731/- under the head of “medical expenses” and
Rs.20,000/- under the head of “future medical expenses” on
the basis of the medical bills and medical records, which does
not call for any interference.
23. By looking into the hospitalization and treatment
undergone by the petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of “diet,
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges”, which does
not call for interference. In all compensation is awarded under
the following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Loss of future income 3,63,000/-
2 Pain and suffering 35,000/-
3 Loss of amenities 25,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid up 41,250/-
period
5 Medical expenses 54,731/-
6 Future medical expenses 20,000/-
7 Diet, nourishment, conveyance 20,000/-
and attendant charges
Total 5,58,981/-
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
24. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.5,58,981/- as against Rs.4,55,880/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
25. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered partly in the
affirmative .
26. Regarding point No.(ii): In this case, the
respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle negligently
rode the vehicle and caused an accident and he has no valid
driving license at the time of accident. The charge sheet has
been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and
338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 181 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
27. The evidence of RW1 also indicates that the rider of
the offending vehicle has no effective driving license as on the
date of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions
of the policy. Ex.R1/insurance policy indicates that it is valid
from 06.01.2020 to 05.01.2021. The accident occurred on
25.04.2020. So, as on the date of accident, the policy holds
good.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rama Bai V. M/s. Amit
7
Minerals and Another at paragraphs No.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
7
2025 SCC 2067
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
however can be recovered by the insurer from the
insured -owner of the vehicle. The appeal stands
allowed.”
29. This Court is of the opinion that, it is just and
reasonable to direct the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
to deposit the compensation at the first instance and then to
recover the same from the owner.
30. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in the
negative .
31. Regarding p oint No.(iii) : In view of the findings
on points No.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed
in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is
entitled to receive compensation of
Rs.5,58,981/- as against Rs.4,55,880/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17319
MFA No. 105761 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020207052024
from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
(iv) Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner. Further, the respondent No.2
being the Insurance Company shall deposit
the 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
recover the same from the respondent
No.1/owner of the offending vehicle.
(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.
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026