Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Manjappa on 30 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
MFA No. 2413 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 3387 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2413 OF 2014 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3387 OF 2014 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 2413/2014
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
10003-E, 8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SETHAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302 022.
BY SRIRAMA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, S & S CORNER BUILDING,
PLOT NO.48, HOSPITAL ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001,
BY ITS MANAGER.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O DURGAPPA,
R/O 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
VINOBHA NAGAR, DAVANGERE-577 001.
2. KUBERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
MFA No. 2413 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 3387 of 2014
HC-KAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2(A) GANGAMMA,
MAJOR,
W/O LATE SHIVAMURTHAPPA,
(MOTHER).
2(B) G.N PUSHPA,
MAJOR,
W/O LATE KUBERAPPA.
(WIFE)
2(C) LATHA,
D/O LATE KUBERAPPA,
MAJOR.
(DAUGHTER)
2(D) TANUJA,
D/O LATE KUBERAPPA,
MAJOR,
(DAUGHTER).
ALL R/AT NO.44 PEDADAR HATTI,
NEAR GOVT. COLLEGE,
THOLAHUNESE, DAVANGERE,
KARNATAKA.
3. K.S.UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O K.S.HANUMANTHAPPA,
R/O DOOR NO.314, 1ST MAIN,
5TH CROSS, VINAYAKA BADAVANE,
DAVANAGERE. (OWNER\INSURED)-577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-1 IS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE
V/O DATED 13.09.2017;
R2 (A), (B), (C), (D) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
MFA No. 2413 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 3387 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.819/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT-IV, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.69,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM 15.11.2012
TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 3387/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJAPPA,
S/O DURGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O NOW AT 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
VINOBA NAGARA, DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H S YOGESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUBERAPPA,
S/O SHIVAMURTHEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
DRIVER OF TATA ACE GOODS,
AUTORICKSHAW BEARING
NO.KA-17/A-9594,
R/O SASALU VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.
2. K.S. UMESH,
S/O K.S. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OWNER OF TATA ACE GOODS,
AUTORICKSHAW BEARING
NO.KA-17/A-9594, DOOR NO.314,
R/O 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
VINAYAKA BADAVANE,
DAVANAGERE-577 002.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
MFA No. 2413 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 3387 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. THE MANAGER,
SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
10003-E, 8, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SETHAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302 022.
POLICY NO.10003/31/11/131538,
POLICY VALID 27.7.2010 TO 26.07.2011
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED
13.12.2017;
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.819/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel Sri O. Mahesh, appearing
for appellant, Insurance Company in MFA No.2413/2014.
None has appeared on behalf of respondents and
appellant/petitioner in MFA No.3387/2014.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC No.819/2011 dated 24.10.2013 passed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV, Davangere, the
Insurance Company is before this Court in MFA
No.2413/2014 seeking to set aside the same and the
petitioner is before this Court in MFA No.3387/2014
seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, when on
19.01.2011 the petitioner along with his wife was going
on a motorcycle bearing No.KA.20.EC 7278 on Honnali-
Nyamathi road, at about 3.00 p.m., the Tata Ace vehicle
bearing No.KA.17.A.9594 came from opposite direction in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle, resulting in both the petitioner and his wife
falling down and sustaining injuries. They were taken to
Government Hospital, Honnali. Thereafter, the petitioner
was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davangere, where the
petitioner was inpatient from 19.01.2011 to 15.2.2011.
Contending that the petitioner had sustained the fracture
of left femur, which has resulted in a disability, he claimed
compensation from the owner and insurer of the Tata Ace
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
vehicle. The petitioner has also contended that he was
working as coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and
aged about 23 years and he has suffered permanent
disability.
4. On being served with the notice, respondent
Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 did not file any written statement.
Respondent No.3, Insurance Company filed written
statement denying petition averments. It was alleged that
the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary
and untenable in law. The Insurance Company also
contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were
violated and therefore, it is not liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner. It was also alleged that
petitioner was riding the motorcycle without following the
traffic rules and therefore, there was negligence on the
part of the petitioner also.
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
Tribunal has framed appropriate issues. The petitioner
was examined as PW1. The Doctor who assessed the
disability was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P10
were marked in the evidence. Respondent No.3 examined
its Legal Officer as RW1 and the ARTO as RW2 and
exhibits R1 to R4 were marked in the evidence.
6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal
awarded the compensation of Rs.69,000/- under the
following heads:
Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 22,500/-
Attendant and other misc. Rs. 7,500/-
expenses
Loss of income during laid up Rs. 9,000/-
period
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs. 69,000/-
7. Being aggrieved by the same, both the
Insurance Company and the petitioner are before this
Court in these appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
8. On being served with the notices, the rival
parties have appeared before this Court, except
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of
the Tata Ace vehicle.
9. The learned counsel Sri O. Mahesh, appearing
for the Insurance Company, who is appellant in MFA
No.2413/2014 submits that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner since, he has
admitted in his evidence that it is a head on collision
between two vehicles and that he has not given
satisfactory answer that he was possessing the valid
driving licence to drive two wheeler at the relevant point of
time. It is contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated
the contributory negligence as contended by the Insurance
Company and that the petitioner himself was unable to
establish that he was equipped with the driving licence to
drive his two wheeler. He further submits that the driver
of the offending Tata Ace vehicle was not having a licence
to drive a goods vehicle i.e., transport vehicle but he was
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
only possessing the LMV driving licence and as such, there
is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
Hence, he seek for indulgence of this Court.
10. There being no arguments on behalf of the
petitioner before this Court, the Court has looked into the
records.
11. A perusal of the appeal memo of the petitioner
show that main contention of the petitioner is about the
quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal in the light of the medical evidence which is
available on record. The petitioner has contended that the
Tribunal has not considered the evidence in a proper way.
Therefore, there is need for enhancement of the
compensation amount under all the heads as permissible
under law.
12. A perusal of the records would reveal that on
19.01.2011, the petitioner along with his wife was
traveling on his motorcycle bearing No.KA.20.EC 7278 and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
while he was riding the same on Honnali- Nyamathi road
at about 3 p.m., a Tata Ace vehicle came from opposite
direction and dashed to it. The petitioner and his wife fell
down and they were shifted to the hospital and they were
treated there. A case was registered by the jurisdictional
police in Crime No.16/2011 and the police, after
investigation filed a chargesheet as per Ex.P5. It is
relevant to note that the complaint was lodged by none
else than the petitioner himself, while he was taking
treatment in the Government Hospital at Davangere. It is
also relevant to note that the spot mahazar which is at
Ex.P2 shows that the accident took place on the road. The
exact place of the accident on the road is not discernible
from the spot mahazar. It is pertinent to note that the
chargesheet has been filed against the Tata Ace vehicle
driver only. The Investigating Officer did not find any
material as against the petitioner herein to hold that he
has also contributed negligence. Further, either the
petitioner or respondent No.3, Insurance Company have
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
not produced the sketch of the spot of the accident. When
the chargesheet is being disputed by the Insurance
Company on the ground of contributory negligence on the
part of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the
Insurance Company to produce the spot sketch of the
accident. In the absence of any spot sketch of the
accident, it is not possible to hold that the action of the
Investigating Officer to indict the driver of the Tata Ace
vehicle alone cannot be found fault with. In that view of
the matter, the police papers and the other documentary
evidence which are available on record is not favourable
to the Insurance Company.
13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
would point out that the testimony of PW1 show that it
was a head on collision and therefore, the contributory
negligence has to be inferred by the Court. The cross-
examination of PW1 though show that the accident
occurred due to head on collision, there is no evidence
that the accident took place at the center of the road.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
Therefore, simply, on the basis of the admission of PW1, it
cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the petitioner also.
14. The cross-examination of PW1 also shows that
he had obtained licence to drive a two wheeler and the
licence was got by him through Auto Rickshaw Drivers
Union. He says that he did not visit any RTO and he has
not given any trial. It is pertinent to note that, even if we
hold that there was no licence held by PW1, unless, it is
established that there was an contributory negligence on
his part, it cannot be said that there was any negligence
by him. Mere non-possession of a driving licence to drive a
two wheeler cannot be inferred to hold that there was
contributory negligence by him. If at all, if he did not have
a driving licence to drive a two wheeler, it is open for the
concerned authority to take strict action against him under
the available provision of law. Therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
that there was contributory negligence cannot be
accepted.
15. The second prong of the argument of the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that, the
driver of the Tata Ace vehicle did not have a valid driving
licence. The testimony of PW2 would show that the driver
of the offending vehicle was having a driving licence to
drive a LMV. The said LMV driving licence extract was
produced by him at Ex.R2 which show that it is a LMV (non
transport) driving licence.
16. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited,1 lays down that it is not necessary for the drivers
of the vehicle of which the unladden weight is less than
7500 kgs, to possess a driving licence of transport vehicle.
The said decision has been again upheld by another Full
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi
(2017) 14 SCC 663
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
and others2 In view of the authoritative pronouncements
of the Supreme Court in this regard, it is not in the mouth
of the Insurance Company to contend that the driver of
the Tata Ace vehicle did not possess a valid driving
licence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
Sri O.Mahesh, for the Insurance Company in this regard
has no merit and as such, the same is rejected.
17. Sofar as the appeal filed by the petitioner in
MFA No.3387/2014 is concerned, it is relevant to note that
the discharge summary which is at Ex.P6 and the wound
certificate which is at Ex.P4 disclose that the petitioner has
sustained comminuted fracture of mid 1/3rd of the left
femur and he was inpatient from 19.1.2011 to 15.2.2011.
He underwent surgery on 1.2.2011.These records issued
by Government Hospital, Davangere, are spoken to by the
Doctor, who assessed the disability as PW2. In his
testimony, he states that he had not treated the
petitioner, but he was working in the JJ Medical College
(2024) 1 SCC 818
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
Hospital and he assessed the disability. There cannot be
any doubt about the testimony of Doctor who did not
treat the petitioner and it has to be assessed with caution.
In his testimony, he states that the petitioner was
attending to his clinic for follow up treatment. In his
affidavit, he has stated that there is shortening of the limb
by 1 1/2 inches wasting of thigh and leg muscles, there
is restriction of the movements of the left knee and
ultimately, he assessed the permanent disability at 35% to
40% to the left lower limb. A careful perusal of these
records coupled with the X ray files which are produced at
Ex.P10 would show that the petitioner had sustained the
disability.
18. The petitioner is aged 23 years and therefore,
the nature of the injuries and the line of treatment
obtained by him at the Government Hospital show that
the physical disability of 35% spoken to by PW2 need not
be the functional disability, this Court assesses he
functional disability of the petitioner at 8%.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
19. The petitioner has not produced any
documentary evidence to show his income. Therefore,
notional income has to be considered. The guidelines
issued by KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes
before the Lok Adalt prescribe notional income of
Rs.6,500/- per month for the year 2011. In umpteen
number of judgments, this Court has held that the
guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with
the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and
therefore, it is accepted. Therefore, the loss of future
income due to disability is calculated as: Rs.6,500/- x 12
x 18x 8% = 1,12,320/- adopting the multiplier of '18' for
the age of 23 years. As a consequence, holding that the
petitioner was unable to resume his work for a period of
three months, a sum of Rs.19,500/-(6,500/- x 3) is
awarded under the head of loss of income during the laid
up period.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-
under the head of pain and sufferings and the same needs
to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
21. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,500/-
towards medical expenses and there is no need for any
interference in this regard.
22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities in life and therefore,
the said compensation also need not call any
enhancement.
23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-
under the head of attendant charges, miscellaneous
expenses and etc., and the same needs to be enhanced to
Rs.20,000/- considering the fact that he was inpatient for
a period of 25 days.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
24. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a
modified compensation of Rs.2,24,320/- under the
following heads:
Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 22,500/-
Nourishment, conveyance, Rs. 20,000/-
attendant charges
Loss of income during Rs. 19,500/-
treatment period
Loss of future income due to Rs.1,12,320/-
disability
Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.2,24,320
Less: awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 69,000/-
Enhancement Rs.1,55,320/-
25. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by
the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and the
appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in
part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in
MFA No.2413/2014 is dismissed.
(ii) The appeal filed by the petitioner in MFA
No.3387/2014 is allowed in part.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23102
HC-KAR
(iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is entitled for
a sum of Rs.1,55,320/- in addition to what has been
awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount with interest within a
period of eight weeks from the date of this
judgment.
(v) The rest of the order of the Tribunal remains
unaltered.
(vi) The amount deposited by the Insurance
Company in MFA No.2413/2014 shall be transmitted
to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
