Karnataka High Court
H.V. Kumarswamy vs S.S. Nataraj on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
MFA No. 4209 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4209 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
H.V. KUMARSWAMY
S/O VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O IN FRONT OF CHURCH,COMPOUND,
K.R.EXTENSION
TIPTUR TOWN
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S.S. NATARAJ
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O HALESH INDUSTRIES
HUNCHANAHATTI, ECIHNOOR POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
Digitally signed by COMPANY LIMITED,
MEGHA MOHAN
JAYADEVA HOSTEL BUILDING,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA B.H.ROAD,
TIPTUR TOWN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.58/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & XIV MACT,
TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
MFA No. 4209 of 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.58/2010
dated 18.02.2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and XIV MACT,
Tiptur, the appellant/claimant is before this Court seeking
enhancement of the compensation and also questioning the
liability. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the road accident.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 15.02.2006 at
about 3:00 p.m., when the claimant was riding his two wheeler
at Gurukula hostel road, K.R.Extension, Tiptur, at that point of
time, one Yamaha crux bike being driven by its rider with high
speed in a rash and negligent manner came from K.R.Extension
park road and without applying indicator dashed to the bike
and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he
was shifted to Ashirwad Clinic, Tiptur and on the advice of the
doctor he took further treatment at Tumkur and Bangalore
hospitals.
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
3. The Tribunal had fastened the liability on the owner of
the vehicle as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having
a valid driving license. Then coming to the compensation, the
Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given
below:
SL. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Pain and suffering for : Rs. 30,000/-
fractured injuries
2. Medical Expenses : Rs. 28,000/-
Extra nourishment,
transportation and
3. : Rs. 5,000/-
other incidental
charges
4. Attendant charges : Rs. 800/-
TOTAL : Rs. 63,800/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submits that the claimant had sustained severe injuries and the
Tribunal had not granted a just and reasonable compensation.
When it comes to the liability, he submits that even if the
claimant is a third party to the insurance policy, as such, even
if there is no driving license, still the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle. He submits that when the doctor had
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
deposed that there is disability, the Tribunal had not considered
the same and nothing has been granted under the head of loss
of income during the laid up period and the compensation that
is granted is not reasonable.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/
Insurance Company submits that the ground with regard to the
no driving license and the liability of the Insurance Company,
no such ground was taken by the claimant. It is submitted that
when it comes to the loss of income during the laid up period,
the Tribunal had given a finding with regard to the occupation
that the claimant is a business man and nothing has been
placed on record to show that the injuries had an impact on his
earning. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal had rightly
not considered the disability as per the evidence of the doctor
as the fractures are united. It is submitted that no
enhancement is required and the Insurance Company has no
liability to pay the compensation.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. First, coming to the
aspect of liability, the driver of the offending vehicle is not
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
having a valid driving license. The contention of the Insurance
Company that such a ground was not taken by the claimant has
no legs to stand as it is a legal ground which is available to the
party and that can be raised at any time of the proceedings. In
the light of the settled law in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh And
Others 1, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation and recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle.
7. Coming to the compensation, as far as not considering
the disability is concerned, the Tribunal had rightly passed the
order. This Court has perused the evidence of the doctor. In
those circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly not granted the
compensation. Then coming to the pain and suffering,
considering the grievous injuries, this Court is inclined to grant
an amount of Rs.40,000/- and towards medical expenses, no
interference is called for. Towards extra nourishment,
transportation and other incidental expenses and
attendant charges, considering the seven days of
(200 4 ) 3 SCC 29 7
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
hospitalization, this Court is granting an amount of
Rs.7,000/-. The Tribunal had rightly held that the claimant is
not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income
during the laid up period.
8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and
Another2, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
9. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation
under the following heads:
SL. Heads Compensation Compensation
No. Awarded by Awarded by
Tribunal this Court
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/- 40,000/-
for fractured
injuries
2. Medical Expenses : Rs. 28,000/- 28,000/-
Extra nourishment,
transportation and
3. other incidental : Rs. 5,800/- 7,000/-
charges, attendant
charges
4. Legal Expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 63,800/- 85,000/-
Enhancement : Rs. 21,200/-
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
10. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation
of an amount of Rs.85,000/-.
11. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly
allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount of
Rs.63,800/- to Rs.85,000/-.
i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization.
ii. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation and recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle.
iii. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall
deposit the amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
v. No costs.
NC: 2025:KHC:13563
vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
