Karnataka High Court
Namadev S/O Digambar Kedar vs Sangita And Anr on 7 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
MFA No. 200896 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200896 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NAMADEV S/O DIGAMBAR KEDAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O VASU KEDRAWADI, TQ. SANGOLA,
DIST. SOLAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT TIKOTA,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SANGITA W/O SATISH DIGHE,
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI R/O NEAR ITI COLLEGE, CHONCHOLI ROAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SONGOLA, DIST. SOLAPUR,
KARNATAKA
MAHARASHTRA-413 307.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
MFA No. 200896 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2021 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII,
VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.397/2020.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
2. Though the matter is slated for admission, with
the consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for
final disposal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
is on the lower side and that fasting of the liability on the
owner by the Tribunal is erroneous.
4. The fact that there was an accident on
27.12.2019 when the petitioner was proceeding to his
relatives house on a motorcycle as a pillion rider and the
motorcycle was hit by a Mahindra Bolero bearing No.MH-
45/A-8654, in which accident, the rider died and the
petitioner sustained injuries is not disputed. The petitioner
had sustained abrasion over the scalp measuring
5cmx5cm, cut lacerated wound over the right foot
measuring 2cm x 3cm, multiple abrasions over the right
side of the body, there were no grievous injuries to the
petitioner.
5. The respondent No.1-owner of Bolero and the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the
Tribunal and resisted the petition.
6. The respondent No.1-owner of the Bolero Jeep
in his written statement contended that his driver was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
having a valid driving licence and therefore the liability, if
any, has to be fastened upon the respondent No.2-
Insurance Company.
7. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company
denied the claim petition contending that the driver of the
Bolero Jeep was not having a valid driving licence and
therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation.
8. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P14. No evidence was lead on behalf of
the respondents.
9. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal had
awarded compensation of Rs.37,580/- under following
head:
Sl. Different heads Compensation
No. amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs.3,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.25,580/-
3. Loss of earning during laid up Rs.3,000/-
period
4. Loss of future earning on NIL
account of permanent disability
5. Loss of amenities and future Rs.3,000/-
unhappiness
6. Attendant, diet, conveyance Rs.3,000/-
and other charges
Total Rs.37,580/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
Further, the Tribunal fastened the liability upon the
respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle on the ground that
though respondent No.1 had contended that the driving
licence was possessed by his driver, he had not produced
it.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the conclusion of the Tribunal on the
quantum of compensation and the liability are erroneous.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Insurance Company submits that the contentions
taken up by respondent No.1 in the written statement
remained to the contentions and evidence was not led to
establish that the driver had the valid driving licence. He
submits that the compensation awarded is adequate and
no enhancement is required.
12. It is evident that the petitioner had produced
FIR and the charge-sheet, which disclosed that the driver
of the Bolero Jeep was prosecuted for the offences
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427
of IPC and Section 184 of M.V.Act. There was no allegation
against the driver that he drove the same without a
driving licence.
13. The respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle
contended that his driver had a valid driving licence. Of
course, he did not adduce any evidence by producing said
driving licence. The Tribunal on the basis of the above
material held that it was incumbent upon the respondent
No.1 to produce the driving licence in order to fasten the
liability on the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It
lost sight of the fact that the respondent No.2-Insurance
Company has also not lead any evidence in the matter.
What is available on record is the charge-sheet, which do
not indict the driver of the Bolero Jeep for not possessing
the driving licence. Therefore, if the respondent No.1 has
not produced the driving licence, it is a matter inter se
between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2-
Insurance Company.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
14. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Pappu vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba1 is squarely
applicable to the case on hand. The another judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Swaran Singh and Others2,
makes it very clear that if the owner of the vehicle has
appeared before the Tribunal and has taken up the
contention that the driver had a valid driving licence and
believing so he had entrusted the vehicle it would suffice
to fasten the liability upon the Insurance Company and
order of payment of compensation and then recover the
same from the insured. In that view of the matter, the
conclusion of the Tribunal are erroneous and to be set at
naught.
15. So far as the quantum is concerned, the
petitioner had suffered three minor injuries as stated
supra. He had spent a sum of Rs.25,580/- towards
medical expenses. In other words, a sum of Rs.12,000/-
(2018) 3 SCC 208
(2004) 3 SCC 297
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
had been awarded by the Tribunal in respect of pain and
suffering and all such other heads, which are permissible.
16. On reassessment of the same, the petitioner is
entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to what has
been awarded by the Tribunal.
17. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) The petitioner is entitled for an additional
sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to what
has been awarded by the Tribunal along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its deposit.
(iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
directed to pay the entire compensation
amount to the petitioner and is at liberty to
recover the same from the respondent
No.1-owner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1510
(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands
unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SDU
CT: AK
