Karnataka High Court

Tajamul Hussain vs Sangappa And Anr on 27 June, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444
                                                         MFA No. 201206 of 2022


                    HC-KAR



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                              BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                          MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201206 OF 2022 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                        TAJAMUL HUSSAIN
                        S/O ABDUL WAHEED,
                        AGE: 29 YEARS,
                        OCC: COOLIE/LABOUR,
                        R/O: VILLAGE BAGDAL,
                        TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   SANGAPPA
                        S/O SIDRAM BIRADAR,
                        AGE: MAJOR,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
Digitally signed        R/O: VILLAE KAMATHANA,
by NIJAMUDDIN           TQ. AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
JAMKHANDI
                        (OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                MOTORCYCLE BEARING
KARNATAKA               REGN.NO.KA-38/K-8216)

                   2.   THE MANAGER,
                        NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
                        BRANCH OFFICE VEERABHADRESHWHAR CHAMBERS
                        DOOR NO.8-10-135 AND IA,
                        OPP. NEHRU STADIUM, BIDAR - 585 401.
                        VALID POLICY NO.610403311610001609
                        VALID FROM 08.03.2017 TO 07.03.2018.
                                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                       R1 IS SERVED)
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444
                                        MFA No. 201206 of 2022


    HC-KAR



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 10.08.2021 PASSED BY THE MACT AND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT BIDAR IN MVC NO. 377/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

Though trial Court records were called for is awaited,

learned counsel for appellant submits that appeal is in narrow

compass wherein claimant was seeking enhancement under

limited heads and was mainly assailing finding of liability. It

was submitted tribunal absolved insurer for its liability on

ground that driver of offending vehicle did not possess driving

licence. However, claimant was third party to contract of

insurance policy as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba1 insurer

would not escape from its liability insofar as claimant. In view

of submission, matter is taken for final disposal.

2018 3 SCC 208

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444

HC-KAR

2. Challenging judgment and award dated 10.08.2021

passed by MACT & Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bidar in MVC

no.377/2019, this appeal is filed.

3. It was submitted that on 09.06.2017, claimant

along with wife and son were traveling on motorcycle bearing

registration no.KA-38/Q-8859, when they were near petrol

pump at Kamathana, rider of motorcycle bearing registration

no.KA-38/K-8216, rode it in rash and negligent manner and

dashed against claimant's motorcycle causing accident. In said

accident, claimant sustained several grievous and fractural

injuries and was admitted to hospital. Despite taking treatment,

he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical

disability. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166

of M.V.Act, against owner and insurer of offending motorcycle.

4. On contest, wherein respondents denied negligence,

involvement of vehicle in accident and insurer alleged violation

of policy conditions.

5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and

recorded evidence, wherein claimant examined himself as PW.1

and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. On behalf of respondents-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444

HC-KAR

Insurance Company, its official was examined as RW.1 and got

marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred

due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle,

claimant sustained permanent physical disability as a result of

injury sustained in accident and therefore entitled for

compensation. It held insurer liable to pay compensation

assessed as follows:

Sl.No.                  Heads                                  Amount
   1   Pain and suffering                                      Rs.40,000/-
   2   Medical, attendant and                incidental        Rs.12,000/-
       charges
   3   Laid up period charges                                  Rs.18,000/-
  4           Medical expenses                                  Rs.24,840/-
  5           Loss of basic amenities                           Rs.15,000/-
                                                    Total     Rs.1,09,840/-

7. On ground that rider of insured vehicle did not

possess driving licence as on date of accident, it fastened

liability on insured. Dissatisfied with finding, claimant was in

appeal.

8. It was specifically submitted claimant had sustained

several fractural injuries i.e., fracture of left maxilla, fracture of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444

HC-KAR

left Zygomatic arch, fracture of left lateral wall of orbit and

fracture of left temporal bone and he was away from

employment. Tribunal awarded compensation towards loss of

income during laid up period for only two months at Rs.9,000/-

which was inadequate and sought enhancement. It was also

submitted, compensation awarded towards loss of amenities,

pain and suffering were also on lower side. On liability, it was

submitted issuance of insurance policy was not disputed.

Admittedly, claimant was third party to contract of policy,

therefore as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu's

case (supra) insurer would be liable to pay compensation. On

said ground sought for allowing of appeal.

9. On other hand, Sri Deepak Barad, learned counsel

for respondent no.2-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted

that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu's case (supra) had held

insurer entitled to recover compensation from insured and

therefore insurer could not be held fully liable. It was submitted

tribunal had assessed just compensation leaving no scope for

interference.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444

HC-KAR

10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

judgment and award.

11. From above, since claimant is challenging finding of

liability as well as for enhancement, points that would arise for

consideration are:

(i) Whether tribunal was justified in absolving insurer from its liability?

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?"

12. From above, it is seen occurrence of accident

involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent riding by its

rider, claimant sustaining permanent physical disability and loss

of earning capacity and being entitled for compensation are not

in dispute. Even, finding of tribunal that rider of offending

insured motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving

licence as on date of accident is also not in dispute. It is also

seen that insofar as contract of insurance policy is considered,

claimant being rider of other motorcycle would be third party.

Under said circumstances, ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Pappu's case (supra) would apply. Insurer would be

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444

HC-KAR

liable to pay compensation to claimant in first instance and

thereafter recover it from insured. Hence, point no.1 in

answered in negative. Insurer is held liable to pay

compensation in first instance and thereafter recover it from

insured.

13. However, claimant sustaining several fractural

injuries and alleged loss of earning capacity etc., he did not

examined doctor who had treated him. He had produced

treatment records, Ex.P5-wound certificate and discharge

summary would indicate claimant had sustained several

fractures i.e., fracture of left maxilla, fracture of left Zygomatic

arch, fracture of left lateral wall of orbit and fracture of left

temporal bone. However, fractures are in respect of compact

region, award of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering would

appear just and proper. Normally, when fractures take about

three months to heal, tribunal would not be justified in

considering only two months as lay-off period. However,

accident occurred in year 2017, notional income for said period

would be Rs.10,250/. Claimant would be entitled for

compensation of Rs.30,750/- as against Rs.18,000/- awarded

by tribunal.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444

HC-KAR

14. Since claimant failed to establish disability by

examining doctor or production of disability certificate, tribunal

was justified in denying compensation towards future loss of

income. It has however awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of amenities notionally which appears just and

proper and not call for interference. Tribunal has awarded

Rs.12,000/- towards medical and other incidental charges and

Rs.24,840/- towards medical expenses which appears just and

proper. Thus, total compensation would be re-assessed as

follows:

Sl.No.                     Heads                       Amount
  1        Pain and suffering                          Rs.40,000/-
  2        Medical, attendant and        incidental    Rs.12,000/-
           charges
  3        Laid up period charges                      Rs.30,750/-
  4        Medical expenses                            Rs.24,840/-
  5        Loss of basic amenities                     Rs.15,000/-
                                             Total Rs.1,22,590/-

15. In view of above, point no.2 is answered partly in

affirmative. Consequently, following:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444

HC-KAR

ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, Judgment and award dated 10.08.2021 passed by MACT and Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bidar in M.V.C.no.377/2019, is modified, claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.1,22,590/- as against Rs.1,09,840/- awarded by tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit.

ii. Respondent-insurer is held liable to pay compensation to claimant in first instance and thereafter recover it from insured without recourse to separate proceedings.