[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs K.R.Prakash @ Pradeep on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5107
MFA No. 100291 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100291 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.R. PRAKASH @ PRADEEP S/O K.B. RUDRESH,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT NEHRU NAGAR,
BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
2. TIPPANAYAKA S/O SAKRYA NAYAK,
AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
CHANDRASHEKAR
R/O: APPINKATTE, BEGUR,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGA,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
OWNER OF CAR.NO.GA.01/A-7915.
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.08 10:24:49
+0100
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1- HELD SUFFICIENT;
NOTICE TO R2- DISPENSED WITH (VIDE ORDER DATED 02.07.2014)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.12.2012, PASSED IN MVC.NO.850/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, ITERNATE COURT, BYADAGI,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,03,440/- WITH THE
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5107
MFA No. 100291 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 12.12.2012 passed
by Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Iternate Court, Byadagi,
('Tribunal' for short), in MVC no.850/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Subhash J. Baddi, learned counsel submitted,
appeal was by insurer challenging finding of Tribunal on liability.
It was submitted, as per claimant, at 6:30 p.m., on 24.12.2009,
claimant was riding motorcycle no.KA.15/K-0770 towards
Shikaripura. When he was in front of Ganapathi temple, driver of
Omni Van bearing no.GA-01/A-7915, drove it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle, causing
accident. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and
despite taking treatment at Primary Health Center, Shikaripura,
Mecggon Hospital, Shivamogga and Ullal Hospital, Ranebennur,
he did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, ('MV Act' for short) against owner and
insurer of Omni Van.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5107
HC-KAR
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant along with Dr.Umanath R.Ullal, deposed as PWs.1 and 2
and got marked Exs.P.1 to 9. On other hand, official of insurer
deposed as RW1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R4.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Omni Van, which
was duly insured and claimant was entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,03,440/- from insurer. Aggrieved, present
appeal was filed.
5. It was submitted, as on date of accident driver did
not have valid and effective driving licence to drive insured
vehicle. He was charge sheeted for offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Sections 134(a) and (b) as well as
Section 3 read with Section 181 of MV Act. Under above
circumstances, Tribunal was not justified in holding insurer liable
to pay compensation.
6. Even on quantum, it was submitted, claimant had
sustained fracture of head of left radius. PW.2 Dr.Umanath Ullal
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5107
HC-KAR
was examined claimant and assessed disability of 25% to
affected limb. Without any justification, Tribunal considered 12%
functional disability and awarded excessive compensation.
7. It was submitted, though appeal of insurer on
liability, due to an inadvertence notice to respondent no.2-owner
was got dispensed with and present counsel having come on
record recently, on noticing same, intended to file an application
for recalling of order dispensing with notice and for issuance of
notice to respondent no.2. In view of above, appellant may be
permitted to takeout notice to respondent no.2 and decide
appeal on liability.
8. Service of notice to respondent no.1-claimant is held
sufficient. Notice to respondent no.2-owner of insured vehicle is
got dispensed with.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
10. From above, points that would arise for consideration
are :
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5107
HC-KAR
i. Whether finding of Tribunal regarding liability of
insurer to pay compensation calls for modification?
And
ii. Whether compensation determined by Tribunal
towards 'future loss of income' calls for reduction?
11. Point no.(i) : Challenge on liability is principally on
ground that driver of Omni Van did not have valid and effective
driving licence as on date of accident. There is no dispute about
occurrence of accident between motorcycle and insured Omni
Van and about claimant sustaining permanent physical disability
as a result of accidental injuries and being entitled for
compensation. To substantiate said contention, insurer examined
its official and got marked a copy of licence extract of driver of
Omni Van as Ex.R2. A perusal would indicate that driver had
learner's licence to drive LMV non-transport from 11.12.2009 to
10.06.2010. Ex.R3 is copy of driving licence issued on
12.01.2010 till 11.01.2030 for LMV. Exs.R2 and R3 as stated
above would indicate that as on date of accident, driver of Omni
vehicle had learner's licence and immediately after accident and
during currency of learner's licence obtained regular licence for
driving LMV. Besides question whether at time of accident, driver
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5107
HC-KAR
was accompanied with a person holding driving licence has not
been specifically elicited by insurer. On other hand, when driver
has taken steps for obtaining driving licence in his name within
period indicated in learner's licence, it would not be appropriate
to absolve insurer of its liability.
12. Another reason for said finding is fact that
immediately at time of admission of appeal, this Court had
dispensed with notice to respondent no.2 at instance of insurer.
Though learned counsel has sought opportunity to contest
matter against owner of insured vehicle nearly 12 years after
notice to respondent no.1 was got dispensed and same would
have been reflected in cause list on every occasion matter was
listed. Therefore, it would be too late in day to contend that
Insurance Company or panel counsel were unaware of said
aspect, till now.
13. In view of above, I do not find any justification for
modification of award of Tribunal on liability. Point no.1 is
answered accordingly.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5107
HC-KAR
14. Point no.2: On quantum, though learned counsel for
insurer would be justified in stating that in Ex.P8 as well as in his
oral deposition, PW2 has stated about fractures having been
united, it is seen that PW2 has noted extent of restriction of
movement of arm, loss of muscle power as well as painful
rotation of arm. Based on same and considering occupation of
claimant as agriculturist, assessment of functional disability at
12% cannot be stated to be grossly excessive as to call for
interference. Point no.2 is answered accordingly.
15. In view of above findings, appeal is devoid of merit
and dismissed as such.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal
for disbursal.
Balance amount, if any to be deposited within 6 weeks.
On deposit, compensation is ordered to be released in
favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM/CLK
CT:VP
