[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Akhilesh @ Aklesh S/O Ramesh Hosamani vs Hanamanth S/O Shivappa Metagar And Anr on 28 November, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
MFA No. 201995 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201995 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
AKHILESH @ AKLESH S/O RAMESH HOSAMANI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGA GALLI,
INDI, NOW AT BHUTANAL TANDA,
VIJAYAPURA-586 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
1. HANAMANTH S/O SHIVAPPA METAGAR,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA R/O. WARD NO. 1, BASANAL, TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 209.
(OWNER OF CRUISER JEEP NO. KA 28/C-9775)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
S.S. CROSS ROAD, HERALAGI BUILDING
BEHIND S.S. TEMPLE,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED,
BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
MFA No. 201995 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988,
PRAYING TO, A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS. B) TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.670/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV VIJAYAPURA AT
VIJAYAPURA. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF Rs.21,77,000/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the
claimant challenging the judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by
MACT-XV, Vijayapura in MVC No.670/2019.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated
are that on 07.10.2018 when the claimant was proceeding on
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-28-EB-0266 on Indi-
Vijayapura road near Kaveri Dhaba Road, at that time, cruiser
jeep bearing registration No.KA-28-C-9775 being driven by its
driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and
was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act,
seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant
amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and
other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident
occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared
through counsel and filed written statement denying the
averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1,
despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal
and was placed ex-parte.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims
Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the
evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has
partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,93,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the offending
vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with
interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the
following contentions:
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month by doing private job. However, the
Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as
Rs.11,750/- per month.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2.
The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability
at 4%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the
claimant suffered 10%-15% disability in respect of nasal bone
fracture.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained
grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 21
days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a
position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of
pain during treatment. Considering the same, the overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
LIABILITY:
The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the insured-
owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of
the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving
licence as on the date of accident. However, since the claimant
is a third party, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU AND ORS. V. VINOD
KUMAR LAMBA AND ANR. [AIR 2018 SC 592] and in the
case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SWARAN
SINGH [(2004) 3 SCC 297] and in view of Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO. LTD. BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER [ILR
2020 Kar.2239], even if the driver of the offending vehicle
was not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of
accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
to the claimant at the first instance, with liberty to recover the
same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought
to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has raised the following counter-contentions:
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of
documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the
Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained
by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly
assessed the whole body disability at 4%.
c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant
and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the
overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and it does not warrant interference.
LIABILITY:
It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle
was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
accident, which amounts to violation of the terms and
conditions of the policy. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly
exonerated the Insurance Company from liability and fastened
liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought
to dismiss the appeal.
[
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 07.10.2018 due
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate
his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional
income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents
occurred in the year 2018, notional income shall be taken at
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
Rs.11,750/- p.m. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the said
income.
11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
fracture of nasal bone, lacerated wound over left upper lib and
chin. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and
injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the whole body
disability can be taken at 5%. The claimant is aged about 23
years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his
age group is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,26,900/- (Rs.11,750*12*18*5%) on
account of 'loss of future income'.
12. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must
have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months.
Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.35,250/- (Rs.11,750*3 months) under the head 'loss of
income during laid up period'.
13. The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more
than 21 days in the hospital and subsequently received further
treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. Considering the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent
disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain
and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and under
the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.40,000/-.
14. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and
reasonable.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
As awarded As awarded
by the by this Court
Compensation under
Tribunal
different Heads (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 30,000 60,000
Medical expenses 182,500 182,500
Food, nourishment, 15,500 15,500
conveyance and attendant
charges
Loss of income during laid 28,500 35,250
up period
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
Loss of amenities 10,000 40,000
Loss of future income 101,520 126,900
Loss of self confidence and 25,000 25,000
anxiety on account of
disfigurement
Total 393,020 485,150
Rounded off 393,000 486,000
LIABILITY:
16. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on
record has rightly given a finding that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the
date of the accident and has fastened the liability on the
insured to pay compensation to the claimant. However, since
the claimant is a third party, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS
(supra), and in the case of SWARAN SINGH (supra) and in
view of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of
YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER (supra), the Insurance Company
is liable to pay compensation to the claimants at the first
instance, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the
same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7320-DB
HC-KAR
17. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.486,000/-.
d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest @ 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
e) The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the said
compensation amount from the owner of the offending
vehicle.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
DM
