Mr K Madhava Kotian Vs Mr Suresh Puthran

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

R

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4894 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR K MADHAVA KOTIAN S/O MR RAGHAVENDRA KOTIAN R/AT MADHULEELA, NO 14/1, AVENUE, N.M.P.T. EMPLOYEES HOUSING COLONY P.O.KULAI HOSABETTU, MANGALURU TALUK D.K.DISTRICT, PIN - 575 019

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶13

Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶14

MR SURESH PUTHRAN S/O MR LAKSHMAN AMIN ADULT, OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN PUTRAN NIVAS, NO.6-97, SITE NO 65 NR OPP PANDURANGA BHAJANA MANDIRA KULAI, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT PIN - 575 005.

¶15

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E-8, EPIP, TANK ROAD, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 302 022.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 -SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.226/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, D.K, MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 26.04.2018 passed in MVC No.226/2015, by the Principal District Judge, MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶29

appearing for both the parties.

¶30

The injured claimant filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering evidence on record granted compensation of Rs.1,53,050/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred appeal and mainly contended that he met with an accident and sustained following injuries:-

¶31

"1. Left supra arbital swelling.

¶32

2. Left clavicle fracture.

¶33

3. Galeazzi fracture (left forearm).

¶34

4. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7^th ribs (left side) fracture."

¶35

He was treated as inpatient from 11.09.2014 till 20.09.2014 for ten days and he has suffered three grievous injuries and one simple injury. He was treated by way of ORIF for left clavicle fracture and left radius fracture. But the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.5,000/- for attendant and nutritious food charges. He was aged 61

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

years working as a Manager in Marble Trade Shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He has produced Ex.P.19/salary slip to prove his income. He also examined PW-2 and the disability assessed by him as 24% to the left upper limb but the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head 'loss of future income' so also no amount was granted under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. The Tribunal has absolved respondent No.3/Insurance Company from paying the liability. The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3. Driver of the vehicle was having driving license for driving non-transport vehicle. As per Ex.R.1, he is authorized to drive non-transport vehicle merely because there was no endorsement, Insurance Company cannot be absolved from paying the liability. Therefore, prays for enhancement and also to fix up the liability against the Insurance Company.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

¶41

submitted in ' Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Ins.Co.Ltd .,'¹ . The Hon'ble Apex Court referred the matter to the larger Bench and the larger Bench opined that it is for the Government to make an amendment regarding transport and non-transport vehicle and regarding the acceptance of driving license issued for nontransport is to be accepted for transport vehicle but so far, no amendment was taken up by State Government and thus, this citation is not applicable. But in the said citation it was held that if the vehicle is not exceeding 7,500 kgs, it is included in the category of transport vehicle. Respondent No.1 is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle but he did not appear before the Court nor filed any written statement. Respondent No.1 is examined as RW-2. He stated that he was driving transport vehicle but it was a goods transport vehicle. He produced Ex.R.2 - driving license. As per Ex.R.1, license was granted to drive LMV - Three wheeler non-transport from 24.11.2009 to 11.11.2024 and in another column it is mentioned that

¶45

1 2016 (4) SCC 298

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

license to drive transport vehicle is valid for the above period. As per RW-2, driver of offending vehicle obtained non-transport driving license which was in force till 11.11.2024. The vehicle met with an accident on 10.09.2014. Now, it is for the Court to decide whether Insurance Company is liable for payment of the compensation as the driver was having only non-transport driving license at the time of accident. Admittedly, driver of the offending vehicle was having driving license for nontransport vehicle and he was driving transport vehicle and there was no endorsement to that effect. As per the law laid down in the Mukund Devagan's case, this Court finds it reasonable to hold that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

¶49

As per Ex.P.3 - wound certificate, petitioner has sustained following injuries:-

¶50

"1. Face/Head: Left supra orbital swelling (CT Brain).

¶51

2. Left Shoulder, Left clavicle fracture.

¶52

3. Left Forearm, Left galeazzi fracture.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

4. Chest, Left side - Fracture Ribs 3^rd to 7^th .

¶56

5. ORIF Left Clavicle with anatomic plate.

¶57

6. ORIF Left radius with 7 holed LCDCP."

¶58

Out of which, injury Nos.2 to 4 are fractures and grievous in nature. Though petitioner filed his salary certificate under Ex.P.19 to show that he was getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He has not examined the employer and thus, his counsel requested this Court to take the notional income as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Petitioner met with an accident on 10.09.2014 and thus, his notional income is taken as Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶59

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the same and contended that the said guidelines are only for State Legal Services Authority but not in regular cases and the minimum wages is to be taken. He also relied upon the following citations:-

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

1) Hansraj vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another in Civil Petition No.3511/2020 dated 20.08.2024;

¶63

2) Smt.Mariyamma and others vs. Sri.Suyambulingam V. in MFA No.7404/2014 dated 06.12.2022.

¶64

When the petitioner failed to produce income proof, this Court is following the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to consider the income of the petitioner in several other cases and once the guidelines are issued for settlement before the Lok-Adalath, there is no reason to follow the same on the regular side. This Court is following the guidelines in several other cases. Therefore, the argument of the respondent's counsel cannot be accepted.

¶65

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.4308 of 2016 (MV) [Deepika.M., and others Vs. The Manager and another] disposed off on 28.03.2018, at paragraph No.10 held as under:

¶66

"xxxxx

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Though the learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the notional income taken in Lok Adalath is higher than the minimum wages prevailing during the said period, but as could be seen from the notification issued periodically by the Government is more or less par with the notional income fixed is settlement of cases before the Lok Adalath".

¶70

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a reported judgment in M.F.A.No.6863/2014 c/w M.F.A.No.1541/2015 (MV-I) [Sri.Ravi @ Ravindra Vs. Thammanna and another] disposed off on 25.03.2021 at paragraph No.65 held as under:

¶71

"xxxxx

¶72

Since there was no credible evidence to establish the actual income of the claimant. In my view, in such a situation, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority".

¶73

Therefore, PW-2 - Doctor after considering the

¶74

nature of injuries assessed the disability of the petitioner as 24% to the left upper limb. The petitioner is aged about 61 years and multiplier applicable is '7'. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take 1/3^rd of the said

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

assessment i.e., 8%. The amount awarded under the head

¶78

'loss of future income due to disability' comes to Rs.57,120/- (8,500 x 12 x 7 x 8%). The petitioner might have attended his work atleast for a period of three months. Hence, loss of income during laid-up period comes to (Rs.8500 X 3) = Rs.25,500/-.

¶79

The amount granted under the head 'pain and sufferings', 'medical expenses' stands good and the amount granted for 'attendant, nutritious food' is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.

¶80

As per evidence of PW-2, future medical expenses of Rs.34,000/- is granted and it needs no interference and an amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be granted under the head 'loss of amenities'.

¶81

Thus in all, award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	1,10,000.00
Loss of amenities	20,000.00
Medical Expenses	4,048.00
Conveyance, diet and attendants charges	30,000.00
Future Medical Expenses	34,000.00
Loss of income during laid up period	25,500.00
Loss of future income due	57,120.00
to disability
Total	2,80,668.00

¶86

Hence, the compensation is enhanced to

¶87

Rs.2,80,668/- as against Rs.1,53,050/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶88

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶91

ii. The judgment and award dated 26.04.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.226/2015 by the

¶92

12 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:38183 MFA No. 4894 of 2019

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Principal District Judge, MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, is modified;

¶96

iii. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,80,668/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.1,53,050/-.

¶97

iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order.

¶98

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest.

¶99

vi. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith, without any delay.

¶100