Karnataka High Court
Mr. Nawaz Khan @ Nayaz Khan vs Sri Mahadevappa.L on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
MFA No. 3193 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3193 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. NAWAZ KHAN @ NAYAZ KHAN,
S/O BASHIR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND SHAREEF HOTEL, 10TH CROSS,
MEKKA MASJID ROAD, DEVASANDRA,
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA.L,
Digitally signed
by R/AT NO.233/E, PRIYANKA NAGAR,
SHARADAVANI SIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, K.R.PURAM,
B
BANGALORE - 560 036.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MICRO OFFICE, K.R. PURAM,
NO.471/1, V.S.CHANDRU BUILDING,
3RD CROSS, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD
K.R. PURAM EXTENSION, OPP. SYNDICATE BANK
BANGALORE - 560 036,
REP. BY REGIONAL MANAGER.
3. R.VEERASWAMY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
MFA No. 3193 of 2016
HC-KAR
38 YEARS
S/O RAGAVAPPA
R/AT NO.73, 7TH CROSS,
GEETHA CLINIC ROAD
DEVASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION
(R3 - R VEERASWAMY))
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2646/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 7th March 2015, passed by the VIII
Additional SCJ and XXXIII ACMM, Member MACT, Bengaluru,
(SCCH-5), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2646/2013,
seeking enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.04.2013,
around 7.30 a.m., the claimant was standing in front of Vishnu
Gym at Ayyappanagar, Davasandra Main Road, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru. At that time, he met with an accident due to the
rash and negligent driving of Goods ACP Traveller bearing
registration No.KA-53-145 by its driver. As a result, he
sustained fracture of both the bones of right leg and other
minor injuries. He took treatment in different hospitals. He has
suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to
award compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is
the insurer and respondent No.3 is the driver of the offending
vehicle. The contention of the respondent No.1 is that the said
vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. He alienated the
said vehicle prior to 01.03.2013, but the
purchaser-R.Veeraswamy, had not changed the RC records in
his name. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation,
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
as he was not the owner of the said vehicle as on the date of
the accident and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
5. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.2 denied
the contents of the claim petition and further contended that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and
effective driving license to drive the said vehicle as on the date
of accident. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the
compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal
framed necessary issues, for its determination.
7. The claimant to prove his case examined three
witnesses as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and marked 17 documents,
as per Exs.P-1 to P-17. Respondent No.2 examined one witness
as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3.
8. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and
appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident
occurred due to negligence of Goods vehicle driver and
awarded following amount of compensation:
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
Particulars Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
Medical expenses 1,05,451/-
Future medical expenses 15,000/-
Loss of earnings and future amenities 1,00,000/-
Total 2,70,451/-
Rounded off 2,70,500/-
9. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the
Tribunal, the claimant has filed present appeal for enhancement
of the compensation.
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant as well as the insurer.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal has not assessed the compensation properly and no
amount of compensation is awarded under the headings 'loss of
future earning capacity due to permanent disability', 'loss of
income during laid up period' and amount spent towards
'incidental expenses'. He further submits that the Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- both on account of
permanent disability as well as loss of amenities. This Court can
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
reassess the said amount and bifurcate the compensation
under different heads. With these reasons, he prayed to
recalculate and enhance the amount of compensation.
12. He further contends that driver of the offending
vehicle had a license to drive the said vehicle, but as on the
date of accident, it was not valid. The claimant being third
party, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the said
compensation with a liberty to recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
the Tribunal has considered materials available on record and
has awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation.
He also contends that, as per the driving license produced
before this Court, along with an application, the said driver had
no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident.
Even if the application is allowed and the appellant is permitted
to produce the document, it will not help the contention of the
claimant or make respondent No.2 liable to pay the
compensation. There are no reasons to interfere in the findings
of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
14. Following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the claimant is entitled to
enhancement of compensation?
(ii) Who is liable to pay the compensation?
Point No.1 :
15. Fact of the accident and injury sustained by the
claimant are not in dispute and no need to reconsider the
same.
16. The claimant has produced the wound certificate at
Ex.P.6; it shows that he sustained cut injury over right leg and
fracture of both bones of right leg. He has produced X-ray at
Ex.P.14, outpatient records of Bowring & Lady Curzon
Hospitals, Bangalore, at Ex.P.15, X-ray taken by said hospital
at Ex.P.16 and discharge given by K.R.Puram Super Specialty
Hospital is at Ex.P.17. These documents corroborate evidence
of PW.1.
17. The claimant examined PW.3-Dr.S.Ramachandra,
who had not treated the claimant at the time of the accident.
The doctor's examination was conducted solely for the purpose
of assessing disability. According to his evidence, the claimant
has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
15% to the whole body. He also stated that he advised the
claimant to undergo surgery for removal of implants.
18. On re-appreciation of the materials available on
record, it is found that the Tribunal has not awarded a just and
reasonable amount of compensation under different heads. On
the contrary, more amount of compensation is required to be
awarded under the heads 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of
amenities'.
19. The medical records show that age of the claimant
as 20 years. The claimant contends that he was working as a
Mechanic in V.L.Auto Work, and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.
The date of the accident is 01.04.2013. Hence, it appears
notional income taken by the Tribunal is less. Following the
chart of notional income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, the notional income of the claimant is taken
as Rs.8,000/- per month.
20. The suitable multiplier applicable to the case in
hand is '18'. Considering the evidence of PW.3 and materials
placed on record, the disability of claimant is assessed as 10%
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
to the whole body. On the basis of the same, compensation
under the head 'loss of future earning capacity due to
permanent disability' is recalculated.
21. For the above said discussions, the following
amount of compensation is awarded:
Particulars Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings 40,000/-
Medical expenses 1,05,451/-
Special diet, conveyance and 25,000/-
attendant charges
Loss of income during laid up period 24,000/-
(Rs.8,000/- x 3)
Loss of future earning capacity due to 1,72,800/-
disability
(Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 18 x 10%)
Loss of amenities 50,000/-
Future medical expenses 25,000/-
Total 4,42,251/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal 2,70,500/-
Enhancement- 1,71,751/-
Rounded off- 1,72,000/-
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
22. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the
affirmative.
Point No.2 :
23. The driver of the offending vehicle had license to
drive the goods vehicle prior to the accident that was in force
from 06.06.1978 to 06.01.2007. The date of the accident was
01.04.2013, as on that date, he had no valid license and he
had not renewed the said license. Undisputedly, the said
vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, which is not in
dispute. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the
compensation and it is at liberty to recover it from the owner of
the vehicle in an appropriate proceeding.
24. I.A.No.2/2016 is filed by the appellant under Order
XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission to
produce the certified copy of the driving license. It was the duty
of the owner of the vehicle to produce the said license.
However, he did not produce it and stated that he sold the
vehicle to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 remained absent
before the Tribunal. Therefore, the helpless claimant produced
the document before this court. Since it is a certified copy of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
the public record, there is no need of formal proof of the
document and it can be considered as evidence. Accordingly,
I.A.No.2/2016 is allowed and document is looked into as
evidence. For the above said reasons, respondent No. 2 is liable
to pay the compensation to the claimant and he is at liberty to
recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
25. The claimant is entitled for interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation at 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization, excluding period of delay in filing the appeal
and on the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards 'future
medical expenses'. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the
affirmative.
26. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
7th March 2015, passed in MVC.No.2646/2013, by
the VIII Additional SCJ and XXXIII ACMM, Member
MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-5), stands modified;
iii) The claimant is entitled to enhancement
of compensation of Rs.1,72,000/-, with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22053
HC-KAR
realization, excluding delayed period of 298 days in
filing the appeal. He is also not entitled for interest
on the amount of future medical expenses of
Rs.25,000/-.
iv) I.A.No.2/2016 is filed under Order XLI
Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC, is allowed.
v) The respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company shall pay the said amount of
compensation and it is at liberty to recover it from
the owner of the vehicle. It shall deposit the amount
within six weeks from the date of award.
vi) Draw award accordingly.
Registry is directed to send back the records along with a
copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AMA
CT: BHK
