Karnataka High Court
H. Eshwarappa vs Vishwanath S/O. Veerabhadrappa on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
MFA No. 102942 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103193 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102942 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103193 OF 2016
IN NO. 102942 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
H. ESHWARAPPA S/O. LATE CHANNA BASAPPA,
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST CUM MILK VENDOR,
R/O. METRI VILLAGE, PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT: SIREGERI VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
DIST: BALLARI-588274.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of
AND:
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench
1. VISHWANATH S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TATA SUMO,
R/O. MOKA GONAL VILLAGE,
TALUK & DIST: BALLARI-583273.
2. JITHENDRA KUMAR R. S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO,
R/O. #16, KALAMAT STREET, W.NO.12,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-583273.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
MFA No. 102942 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103193 of 2016
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
NO.40, 1ST FLOOR, S.L.V. TOWERS,
PARVATHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-583273.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADV. FOR
SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII,
AT BALLARI, IN M.V.C NO.509/2014, DATED 18.04.2016 AND ALLOW
THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 103193 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.40, 1ST FLOOR, S.L.V. TOWERS,
PARVATHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE, CTS # 172/171, V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADV. FOR
SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H. ESHWARAPPA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
MFA No. 102942 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103193 of 2016
S/O. LATE CHANNA BASAPPA,
AGE 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST CUM MILK VENDOR,
R/O. METRI VILLAGE,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SIREGERI VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.
2. VISHWANATH
S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGE 28 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE TATA SUMO,
R/O. MOKA GONAL VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. JITHENDRA KUMAR R.
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGE 34 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO,
R/O. #16, KALAMAT STREET,
W.NO.12, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. R. TURAMARI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE
PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE PPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2016
PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI,
IN MVC NO.509/2014, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
MFA No. 102942 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103193 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. MFA No.102942 of 2016 is filed by the claimant
and MFA No.103193 of 2016 is filed by the Insurer against
the judgment and award dated 18.04.2016 passed in MVC
No.509 of 2014 by the MACT-XII, Ballari (for short, 'the
Tribunal').
2. Both the appeals are taken up together for
disposal since they arise out of common judgment.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of claimant that on 22.09.2013
claimant along with one H.Giriyappa who was petitioner in
MVC No.510/2014 were going on the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-34/W-965, from Ballari towards
Hosapete. They met with an accident due to rash and
negligent driving of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
No.Ka-34/8928. Both the claimant as well as said
H.Giriyappa sustained grievous injuries. They took
treatment in VIMS Hospital, Ballari. Claimant sustained
fracture of left clavicle bone along with the following
injuries:
1) Lacerated would 6X10ms over injection right parietal
region.
2) Abrasion 5X8cms forehead.
3) Loss of ala of the right side of nose.
4) abrasion over the lips.
5) abrasion over the right knee.
6) tenderness over the left clavicle region.
5. It is further contended that he had spent huge
amount towards medical expenses. He has been suffering
from permanent disability due to injuries sustained in the
accident. He has also contended that he was aged about
48 years and was working as coolie and was doing milk
vending business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. With
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
these reasons prayed to award compensation of
Rs.10,80,000/-.
6. The respondent No.3/insurer denied the
contention of the claim petitioner. It is further contended
that driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence to
drive LMV non- transport vehicle bearing DL No.6568/07-
08 dated 18.02.2008. He was not authorized to drive
transport vehicle; however at the time of accident, he was
driving transport vehicle and violated terms and conditions
of policy of insurance and hence respondent No.3 is not
liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.3/insurer also
contended that owner of the vehicle violated terms and
conditions of policy of insurance, therefore it is not liable to
pay the compensation. With these reasons prayed to
dismiss the claim petition.
7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal framed necessary issues.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
8. The claimant to prove his case got examined
two witnesses as PWs.1 and 3 i.e., himself as PW1 and
examined a doctor who has issued disability certificate, as
PW.3.
9. The Tribunal has clubbed both MVC Nos.509 and
510 of 2014 and recorded common evidence.
10. The claimants in both the cases have got
marked 12 documents as per Exs.P1 to P12. Respondents
examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and got marked
4 documents as per Exs.R1 to R4.
11. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
appreciating materials available on record, awarded total
compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- to the claimant with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The Tribunal also
directed that all respondent are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation. The same is challenged by both the
parties in the present case.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
12. Claimant has challenged the award for
enhancement of the compensation and Insurer has
challenged on the ground of its liability to pay
compensation since the owner has violated conditions of
policy of insurance and permitted the driver, who was not
holding valid and effective driving licence, to drive that
class of vehicle.
13. Heard the arguments of both the sides.
14. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that
the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is
on lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded just amount
of compensation towards medical and incidental expenses.
The claimant was admitted as inpatient for 15 days in the
Hospital. Thereafter he had taken follow up treatment. No
amount of compensation was awarded towards attendant
charges and special diet etc. The amount of compensation
award towards loss of future earning capacity and
amenities is meager sum of Rs.60,000/-, therefore prayed
to enhance the said amount of compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
15. He further submits that in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, there is no need of
special endorsement to drive transport vehicle. A person
holding LMV licence can drive transport vehicle also.
Therefore driving of transport vehicle without endorsement
do not amount to violation of the conditions of policy of
insurance. Hence both the insurer as well as owner are
liable to pay the compensation.
16. Learned counsel for insurer vehemently
contends that in addition to awarding excessive amount of
compensation, the Tribunal arbitrarily awarded interest at
the rate of 7% per annum, which is on much higher side.
Learned counsel also accepted that in view of the law laid
down in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred supra,
another ground taken by respondent/insurer is not
tenable. Accordingly passed appropriate orders.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
17. Learned counsel for claimant in reply contend
about the interest awarded by the Tribunal. Award of
interest is the discretion of the Court or Tribunal.
Exercising the said discretion, the Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 7% per annum. It is not arbitrary or
exorbitant. Therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere
in the said finding.
18. The following questions arise for determination:
i. Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
ii. Whether insurer is absolved from its liability
to the pay compensation?
iii. What order?
19. The main contention of the appellant/claimant
is that no amount of compensation was awarded towards
attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges.
PW1 in his evidence has stated that he was admitted as
inpatient in the hospital for more than 15 days and
thereafter he took follow up treatment. Admittedly they
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded
in all Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant
charges. Claimant had taken treatment in VIMS Hospital,
Ballari. He has produced some of the medical receipts
which are already considered by the Tribunal.
20. Looking to the nature of injury and treatment
taken as inpatient, and follow up treatment, some more
amount needs to be added towards attendant charges,
special diet and conveyance charges.
21. Claimant was said to be working as coolie and
earning Rs.8,000/- per month. No amount of
compensation is awarded towards loss of income during
laid up period. Atleast for a period of 2 to 3 months he
might not have been in a position to attend to his work
and lost his earnings.
22. The Tribunal has assessed disability on the
basis of the evidence of PW2. As per evidence of PW2
claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to
an extent of 15%, but the Tribunal has not calculated loss
of future earning capacity due to permanent disability, but
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
awarded in all Rs.60,000/- towards loss of future income
as well as permanent disability. It is settled law that
fracture of clavicle bone may not lead to permanent
disability, affecting the earning capacity. However it may
lead to some difficulty in day to day work because of which
the claimant may have to suffer of discomfort and
inconvenience and loss of some of the amenities.
Therefore the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal on both the head is inadequate. Considering all
these facts and circumstances claimant is entitled for
enhancement of global compensation of Rs.50,000/- in
addition to whatever amount awarded by the Tribunal.
23. The main contention of the respondent is that
driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle
without having valid licence. In view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan referred supra, the said contention do not
hold any water and person having LMV driving licence can
drive transport vehicle without any special endorsement
on it. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation cannot be disturbed.
24. For the aforesaid discussions, the above said
points are answered accordingly and this Court pass
following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.103193/2016 is dismissed.
ii. MFA No.102942/2016 is allowed in part.
iii. The judgment and award dated 18.04.2016
passed in MVC No.509 of 2014 on the file of
MACT-XII, Ballari is modified.
iv. Claimant is entitled for enhanced global
amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- in
addition to whatever amount awarded by the
Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the enhanced amount of
compensation from the date of petition till its
realization.
v. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the said
enhanced amount of compensation with
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5475
interest within a period of six weeks from the
date of drawing of the award.
vi. Whatever amount deposited by the insurer
before this Court shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal.
vii. Send back the TCR along with copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
KGK /CT-AN
