Karnataka High Court
Shri Reddy @ Nallareddy vs Shri.Jambayya And Anr on 26 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
MFA No. 202439 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202439 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. REDDY @ NALLAREDDY
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA @ HANUMANTHA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: WATCHMAN & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.52, GONAL VILLAGE RAICHUR,
TQ & DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI.JAMBAYYA S/O HANUMANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER & OWNER OF AUTO BG.NO.KA 36/B 0659,
R/O: JEGARKAL VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
MATHAPATI ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Location: HIGH MAHANTH ARCADE, MAHANTH NAGAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 INSURER TO PAY THE
COMPENSATION, BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 29.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (MACT) AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO. 577/2015,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
MFA No. 202439 of 2019
HC-KAR
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 29.01.2019
passed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal), Raichur, (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC
no.577/2015, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel
submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation and shifting liability upon insurer. It was
submitted, on 05.04.2015 at about 1.00 p.m., when claimant
was proceeding in an auto bearing no.KA-36/B-065 towards
Matha Manikeshwari Math, Raichur, driver of said auto drove it
in rash and negligent manner causing it to turtle. Due to same,
he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to RIMS
Hospital, Raichur. Despite taking treatment including surgery,
he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical
disability/loss of earning capacity. Hence, he filed claim petition
under Section 166 of MV Act, against owner and insurer of
auto.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
HC-KAR
3. On contest, owner and insurer of offending vehicle
appeared and opposed petition.
4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence, wherein claimant and Dr.Rajednra Kothari
were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to
P.11. On behalf of respondents, its official was examined as
RW-1 and one witness as RW.2 and Exs.R-1 to R8 were
marked.
5. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of auto by its driver and
claimant was entitled for compensation computed as under:
For pain & suffering. Rs.30,000/-
For medical expenses. Rs.10,000/-
For attendant charges Rs.6,000/-
For nourishing, extra Rs.5,000/-
nourishment and for
special diet.
For loss of future Rs.55,440/-
earning on account of
disability suffered to the
extent of 7% to whole body.
For loss of earning during the Rs.12,000/-
treatment
period for two months
at the rate of Rs.6,000/ p.m.
Future medical treatment. Rs.10,000/-
For loss of amenities. Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.1,33,440/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
HC-KAR
6. On ground that driver of auto was not holding valid
driving license and vehicle did not have permit, tribunal held
owner liable to pay compensation. Assailing award, claimant
was in appeal not only for enhancement, but, also for holding
insurer liable to pay compensation.
7. It was firstly submitted claimant was passenger in
auto and therefore, was third party to contract of insurance. In
view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu
and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr., reported in 2018
(3) SCC 308, insurer would be required to pay compensation
to claimants in first instance and thereafter recover same from
insured.
8. Further, Division Bench of this Court in MFA
no.201648/2015 and connected matters, disposed of on
26.11.2020 has held violation of permit would at best attract
penalty and insurer could not escape liability on said ground.
9. On other hand, Sri S S Aspalli, contended that
taking note of fact that driver of auto was not having license,
tribunal had held owner liable to pay compensation. Therefore,
award did not call for interference.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
HC-KAR
10. From above, since claimant is in appeal challenging
finding of tribunal on liability, as well as for enhancement of
compensation, points that arise for consideration are:
i) Whether tribunal was justified in absolving
insurer from liability?
ii) Whether claimant is are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
Point no.1:
11. Admittedly, claimant was passenger in auto and as
such, third party to contract of insurance. Tribunal discharged
insurer from liability on sole ground that driver of auto did not
have valid driving license. Therefore, ratio in case of
Pappu(supra) would apply and insurer has to be held liable to
pay compensation to claimant in first instance and thereafter,
recover it from insured without recourse to separate
proceedings. Point no.1 is answered in negative.
Point no.2:
12. On quantum, it is seen accident occurred in year
2015. Claimant was stated to be working as watchman and
earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. But, he did not substantiate it with
specific evidence. In absence, tribunal assessed it notionally.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
HC-KAR
But, notional income for year 2015 is Rs.8,000/-. Same has to
be considered. As per, Ex.P-2 i.e. wound certificate, Ex.P-7 i.e.
discharge summary, claimant sustained fracture of symphysis
menti and mandible. Considering same, award towards
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering would be justified. Even
award of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses against bills
produced, Rs.6,000/- towards attendant and Rs.5,000/-
towards diet etc., for 5 days inpatient period would be justified.
13. Normally, fractures take 3 months to heal.
Therefore, claimant would be entitled for Rs.24,000/- towards
loss of income during laid up period. PW-2 examined claimant
and assessed disability at 36%. Taking note of fact that he was
not an ENT specialist or dentist, tribunal moderated assessment
of loss of earning capacity to 7%. Since, there is fracture to
mandible assessment of functional disability by tribunal appears
justified. Thus, future loss of income has to be recomputed as
follows:
Rs.8,000/- x 7% x 12 x 11 = Rs.73,920/-.
14. Taking note of fracture sustained and disability
caused award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
HC-KAR
not be justified and same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Tribunal
awarded Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses, which
is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Point no.2 answered partly in
affirmative.
15. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award
dated 29.01.2019 passed in MVC no.577/2015
by Prl. District and Sessions Judge (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Raichur, is modified,
claimant is held entitled for total compensation
of Rs.1,83,920/- as against Rs.1,33,440/-
awarded by tribunal with interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till deposit.
ii) Respondent no.2-insurer is held liable to pay
said amount to claimant in first instance and
thereafter recover same from insured without
recourse to separate proceedings.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408
HC-KAR
iii) On deposit, condition for deposit and release
would apply as per order of tribunal.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
Ct;Vk
