Karnataka High Court
Santosh vs Abdul Majeed And Anr on 25 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
MFA No. 201030 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201030 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH
S/O BADHAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR/COOLIE,
R/O: VILLAGE BAGDAL THANDA,
TQ. AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 402.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABDUL MAJEED S/O ABDUL GAFFAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER AND BUSINESS,
Digitally signed R/O: BAGDAL, TQ AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 402.
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI (OWNER OF MAHINDRA MAXIMO MINI VAN
Location: HIGH BEARING NO.KA-38/M-4286)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE MANAGER,
IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, HAVAPPA COMPLEX NO.200,
201 AND 202, UDGIR ROAD,
SHIVNAGAR SOUTH, BIDAR - 585 401.
(VIDE POLICY NO.1-2LDWKEIP P 400
POLICY# MR 763779)
(VALID FROM 15.11.2022 TO 14.11.2023)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
MFA No. 201030 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM AND ADDL. MACT, BIDAR, IN MVC NO.291/2023, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 08.02.2024
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Addl. MACT,
Bidar (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.291/2023, this appeal is
filed.
2. Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel submitted
that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation.
It was submitted, on 16.11.2022, when claimant along with
others were traveling in maxi cab reg.no.KA-38/M-4286 to go
to Chalki village in Telangana, rider of motorcycle reg.no.KA-
38/L-7964 came from opposite side, due to same driver of maxi
cab lost control over vehicle dashed against motorcycle and
caused accident. In said accident, claimant sustained fracture
of right wrist elbow, distal radius and other grievous injuries.
He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Bidar and
later he also took treatment in private hospital. Despite same,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
HC-KAR
he sustained permanent physical disability and consequential
loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of
maxi cab.
3. On contest, wherein insurer filed objections denying
claim petition averments in toto and alleging violation of policy
conditions, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence,
claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Mallikarjun as PW.2,
Exs.P1 to P.11 were marked. Insurer examined its official as
RW.1 and got marked Insurance Policy as Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by
its driver, claimant had sustained permanent disability and loss
of earning capacity and therefore, claimant was entitled for
compensation assessed by it as follows:
Pain and sufferings `10,000/-
Loss of future income on account of permanent `1,84,320/-
disability
Medical expenses, attendant, conveyance, nourishing `10,100/-
food and other incidental expenses
Loss of income during laid up period `12,000/-
Loss of amenities, life comforts and expectancy of life `5,000/-
Total `2,21,420/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
HC-KAR
5. On ground that insurance coverage subscribed was
against third parties only, it absolved insurer of liability. Not
satisfied with quantum of compensation and finding on liability,
claimant was in appeal.
6. It was submitted though claimant had stated he
was an agricultural coolie, earning `15,000/- per month,
tribunal erred in taking it at `12,000/-. It was further
submitted, tribunal awarded only `10,000/- towards pain and
suffering which was grossly inadequate. Likewise, award of
`12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period,
`10,100/- towards medical expenses, attendant, nourishment
and other incidental expenses and `5,000/- towards loss of
amenities were grossly inadequate and sought enhancement.
7. It was submitted, PW.2 - Doctor had assessed limb
disability at 25%. However, he had specifically stated that
claimant had lost grip strength could not button-up his shirt
etc. Considering same, assessment of functional disability at
8% was on lower side and sought enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
HC-KAR
8. It was further submitted Insurance Policy produced
disclosed acceptance of additional premium for unnamed
passengers. Therefore, claimant would be covered and insurer
would be liable.
9. On other hand, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned
counsel for respondent - Insurer opposed appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
11. From above and since only claimant is in appeal
both on liability as well as enhancement, points that would
arise for consideration are :
1. Whether tribunal was justified in holding owner
is liable to pay compensation even when
insurer had collected additional premium
towards covering risk of passengers in
commercial vehicle ?
2. Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement
of compensation as sought for ?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
HC-KAR
Point no.1 :
12. Perusal of Ex.R1 - Issuance Policy would indicate
that insurer has collected premium of `300/- (IMT-16) to cover
risk of passengers in vehicle with financial limit of liability at
`15,00,000/- during coverage. There is no material led by
insurer to establish that said limit is exhausted. In view of
collection of special premium, insurer would have to be held
liable. Point no.1 is answered in negative.
Point no.2 :
13. Claimant sustained fracture of right distal radius
apart form other blunt injuries. Award of `10,000/- towards
pain and suffering would not be adequate, it would be
appropriate to enhance it to `30,000/-. Though claimant had
stated that monthly income was `15,000/- same was not
substantiated any material. In absence, tribunal assessed
notionally at `10,000/- but notional income for year 2022,
would be `14,750/-, same has to be considered. Further when
PW.2 - Orthopedic Doctor examined claimant and assessed
limb disability at 25% and also specifically deposed about
restriction or reduction of loss of grip strength of his right hand,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
HC-KAR
assessment of functional disability at 1/3rd of limb disability
would not be proper. Taking note of fact that claimant is
agricultural coolie, it would be appropriate to enhance
functional disability to 10%. Thus, compensation towards future
loss of income would be computed as follows :
`14,750/- x 10% x 12 x 16 = `2,83,200/-.
14. Tribunal has awarded `10,100/- towards
attendance, nourishment and other incidental expenses
including medical expenses. It is seen that claimant has not
produced any medical bills, taking note of same award would
appear just leaving no scope for enhancement. Normally,
fractures take three months to heal. Same has to be taken as
lay off period. Thus, claimant would be entitled to `44,250/-
towards loss of income during laid up period. Award of `5,000/-
towards loss of amenities when claimant has sustained fracture
and permanent physical disability would not be justified, it
would be appropriate to enhance it to `25,000/-. Thus,
claimant would be entitled to total compensation of `3,92,550/-
as against `2,21,420/- as awarded by tribunal. Point no.2 is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3389
HC-KAR
answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently,
following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award
dated 08.02.2024 passed in MVC no.291/2023
by Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM and Addl. MACT, Bidar is modified,
claimant is held entitled for total compensation
of `3,92,550/- as against `2,21,420/- awarded
by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till
realization.
ii. Insurer is held liable to pay same and is
directed to deposit it before Tribunal within six
weeks.
iii. Conditions about deposit/release shall apply to
enhanced award proportionately as per tribunal
award.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
