Karnataka High Court
Mr Mohammed Rafiq vs Mr Sharath Kumar on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
MFA No. 5548 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5548/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR MOHAMMED RAFIQ,
S/O ABDUL RAZAK,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT KUTHAR PADAVU,
SANTHOSH NAGARA,
MUNNUR VILLAGE,
MANGALORE TALUK
PIN-575 004.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR SHARATH KUMAR,
S/O CHENNAYA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT 20-106, NEAR SEBASTINE CHURCH,
Digitally signed KRISHNA NAGARA, PERMANNUR,
by PADMASHREE MANGALORE TALUK,
SHEKHAR DESAI PIN-575004.
Location: High
Court Of
Karnatka 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
II FLOOR, RRASIK CHAMBER.
OPP. CENTRAL MARKET,
MANGALORE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
PIN-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K RANJAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. M.S. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
MFA No. 5548 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.76/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award dated 23.04.2014 passed in MVC
No.76/2012, by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT,
Mangalore, D.K., for enhancing the compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2
and 3. The ranks of the parties are retained as per
tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Injured claimant filed claim application claiming
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- before but the tribunal
considering the entire evidence on record, granted an
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
amount of Rs.87,429/- with the interest at the rate of 6%
p.a., from the date of petition, till realization.
4. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is
preferred in which it is contended that the
injured/claimant, as per wound certificate at Ex.P3
sustained 4 injuries out of which 3 and 4 are grievous in
nature and 1 and 2 are simple injuries. He was inpatient
for 18 days and underwent treatment for fracture of the
right limb and other injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner
submits that the tribunal awarded Rs.35,000/- towards
pain and suffering and it is on lower side. He was aged 39
years working as auto driver earning Rs.10,000/- per
month, he did not attend any work at least for 6 months,
but the meagre amount of the Rs.5,000/- was granted
towards loss of income during laid up. Amount granted
towards loss of amenities is meagre. Further, submits that
the appellant was treated by way of intra medullary nailing
and implant needs to be removed after healing of the
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
fracture. As such he also requires Rs.25,000/- towards
future medical expenses, but it was not considered. He
further submits that the accident took place on
19.05.2011 and the policy was in force during the time of
accident. The driver of the vehicle was having learner's
license and it was issued on 11.02.2013. Therefore,
requested for enhancement of the award amount.
6. As per the wound certificate, Ex.P3, the
petitioner/claimant sustained the following injuries;
"1. Lacerated wound over Right
temporal region measuring 3x1 cm, and
frontal region measuring 2x1 cm, CT
Scan head -Normal.
2. Tenderness & Swelling over Right
hand & Left hand 'X' ray Right+ hand AP-
NAD 'X' ray Left hand AP-NAD
3. Tenderness and Swelling over the
Left+ thigh X'ray Left+ femur AP-#L
femur.
4. Tenderness over the mandibular
region + X'ray skull AP-Alveolar #."
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
Out of the aforementioned injuries, wound Nos.3 and 4 are
grevious in nature. He was also hospitalised for a period
of 18 days, but he has not examined the doctor. As such
disability cannot be assessed. Considering the nature of
injuries this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount
of Rs.35,000/- towards injuries. Towards pain and
suffering Rs.35,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for loss of
amenities. The amount granted towards medical expenses
of Rs.27,429/- holds good. This court also finds it
reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- for
transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as an auto
driver, but due to the injuries sustained by him, he might
not have attended his work at least for a period of 5
months. Therefore, as he met with an accident during the
year 2011, his income to be taken as Rs.6,500/- per
month and thus he is entitled for Rs.6,500 X 5 =
Rs.32,500/- under the head loss of income during laid up
period.
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
8. The petitioner further stated as he sustained
fractures, there were implants and they required to be
removed. Therefore, this court also finds reasonable to
grant amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical
expenses.
9. Thus in all, components awarded by this court
are as below,
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Towards injuries 35,000
Pain and suffering 35,000
Loss of amenities 25,000
Transportation, extra 30,000
nourishment and
attendant charges.
Medical expenses 27,429
Loss of income during laid 32,500
up period
Loss of income during laid 25,000
up period
Total 2,09,929
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,09,929/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
10. Further, it is contended by the respondent No.2,
that as there was no driving licence at the time of
accident, they are not liable to pay compensation.
However, admittedly RW1 was having Learner's Licence at
the time of accident and he has filed the same under
Ex.R2 and it is valid from 21.02.2011 to 20.08.2011. He
met with an accident on 19.5.2011. As such, as on the
date of accident, he was having learning licence and later
he obtained regular licence.
11. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle
relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Mohammed Siddique & Anr., Vs. National Insurance
Company ltd., & Ors in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 in
which it is contended that there is no specific contention
that accident occurred due to triple riding. As such the
victim could not have been held guilty for contributory
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
negligence. He also relied upon another judgment
reported in ILR 1989 KAR 441 in case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Felix Correa in which it was held
that the holder of the Learner's Licence is the person duly
licensed, held in Oriental Insurance case stated, as below,
"14. Now taking the terms of the policy itself it
is apparently clear that there was a promise on
the part of the insured that the vehicle would be
driven by a person holding valid driving licence
or had held a permanent driving licence other
than a Learner's Licence and was not
disqualified from holding or obtaining such a
licence (emphasis supplied). This would only
indicate that if at all the driver had a valid
driving licence including a Learner's
Licence at the time of the accident the
Insurance Company would be liable but if he
had no licence at the time the accident occurred
then he must have held a permanent
driving licence and was not disqualified from
holding or obtaining such a permanent driving
licence.
12. Further, he mainly contended that as on the
date of accident he was having Learner's Licence and thus
it was not mentioned specifically in the policy, that he was
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
disqualified from holding the Learner's License. Thus,
insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon
the judgment of this court in case of National Insurance
Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.Pushpavathi and Ors in MFA
No.11429/2006 dated 25.08.2010. The coordinate
bench, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in 2005(2) of ACJ 797 in case of
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. K.Sundarama and
Ors, in which it was held as follows;
"breach alleged is not the factor which has contributed
to the cause of the accident and it is not a
fundamental breach, so as to entitle the insurance
company to avoid its liability all together".
Finally it was held that the insurance company is directed
to pay the amount and recover from the owner of the
vehicle.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
14. Learned counsel for the Insurance company
submits that there may be direction to pay and recover
the amount from the owner of the vehicle. In the present
case, the rider of the offending vehicle was having
Learner's Licence at the time of accident and later he
obtained regular license. Therefore, considering the
aforementioned citations, this court feels that it is just and
reasonable to fasten the liability on the Insurance
Company and thus it is liable to pay the compensation.
15. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award dated
23.04.2014 passed in MVC No.76/2012, by
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT,
Mangalore, D.K, is modified.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36155
HC-KAR
iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,09,929/- along with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till the date
of realization, instead of Rs.87,429/-
granted by the tribunal.
iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance company is
directed to deposit the amount within one
month from the date of this order;
v. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount along with
interest accrued on it.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKV
