Basavaraj @ Basavantappa Hadapad, Vs B. Suresh S/O Ramudu @ Ramamurthy

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100167 OF 2015 C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101871 OF 2015 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101876 OF 2015

¶8

IN MFA.CROB No. 100167/2015

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BASAVARAJ @ BASAVANTAPPA HADAPAD, S/O KOTRAPPA, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR WORK AT PVT. HARDWARE SHOP, R/O. GINIGERA, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶11

…CROSS OBJECTOR

¶12

(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADV)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

B. SURESH S/O RAMUDU @ RAMAMURTHY, AGE:26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O: DEVANAGAR BADAVANE, 2^ND AND 4^TH CROSS, BALLARI.

¶17

S. MUSTAFA S/O SAYYADASAB, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC. OWNER VEHICLE CANTER NO. KA-43/929, R/O: W.NO.15, D.NO.107, BALAJI RAO ROAD, VADDARABANDA, BALLARI-583 101 KARNATAKA STATE.

¶18

THE MANAGER, FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., PASADENA NO. 18/1 (OLD NO.125/A 3^RD FLOOR, ASHOKL PILLAR ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 082, KARNATAKA.

¶19

B. RAMAKRISHNA S/O B RAMUDU @ RAMAMURTHY, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF TANKER NO. KA-43/929,

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

R/O: 201, DEVENAGAR BADAVANE, IIND & 4^TH CROSS, BALLARI, KARNATAKA.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAVI ADV FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH & R2 IS SERVED)

¶26

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.101871/2015 IS FILED U/O. 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.536/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

IN MFA NO. 101871/2015

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE MANAGER, FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO,. LTD. PASADENA NO.18/1, (OLD NO.125/A) 3^RD FLOOR, ASHOK PILLAR ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082, KARNATAKA, NOW R/BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE BRANCH OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR, KALBURGI LAND MARK OPP. T.B GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL DESHPANDENAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶30

...APPELLANT

¶31

(BY SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAMI ADV FOR

¶32

SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV)

¶33

AND:

¶34

BASAVARAJ @ BASAVANTAPPA HADAPAD S/O. KOTRAPPA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR WORK AT PRIVATE HARDWARE SHOP, R/O. GINIGERA, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶35

B. SURESH S/O. RAMUDU @ RAMAMURTHY AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER R/O. DEVANAGAR BADAVANE

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

2^ND & 4^TH CROSS, BALLARI.

¶40

S. MUSTAFA S/O. SAYYADASAB AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE CANTER NO. KA 43/929, R/O. W NO.15, D NO.107, BALAJI RAO ROAD, VADDARABANDA, BALLARI-583101, KARNATAKA STATE.

¶41

B. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. B. RAMUDU @ RAMAMURTY, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TANKER NO. KA 43/929, R/O. 201, DEVENAGAR BADAVANE 2ND & 4^TH CROSS, BALLARI, KARNATAKA.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADV FOR R1, SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADV FOR R3, NOTICE TO R2 & R4 ARE SERVED)

¶44

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT,1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:07.04.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.536/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, KOPPAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,41,763/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALIZATION ENTIRE AMOUNT FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4.

¶45

IN MFA NO. 101876/2015

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

THE MANAGER, FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO,. LTD. PASADENA NO.18/1, (OLD NO.125/A) 3^RD FLOOR, ASHOK PILLAR ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082, KARNATAKA, NOW R/BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE BRANCH OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR, KALBURGI LAND MARK, OPP. T.B GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL DESHPANDENAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶48

...APPELLANT

¶49

4 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(BY SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAMI ADV FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV)

¶53

AND:

¶54

BHEEMAPPA S/O. FAKEERAPPA AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. GINIGERA, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶55

B. SURESH S/O. RAMUDU @ RAMAMURTHY AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER R/O. DEVANAGAR BADAVANE 2^ND & 4^TH CROSS, BALLARI.

¶56

S. MUSTAFA S/O. SAYYADASAB AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE CANTER NO. KA 43/929, R/O. W NO.15, D NO.107, BALAJI RAO ROAD, VADDARABANDA, BALLARI-583101, KARNATAKA STATE.

¶57

B. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. B. RAMUDU @ RAMAMURTY, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TANKER NO. KA 43/929, R/O. 201, DEVENAGAR BADAVANE 2^ND & 4^TH CROSS, BALLARI, KARNATAKA.

¶58

...RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADV FOR R1, SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADV FOR R3, R2 & R4 ARE SERVED)

¶60

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT,1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:07.04.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.535/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, KOPPAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,10,952/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALIZATION ENTIRE AMOUNT FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4.

¶61

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶63

5 -

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

ORAL ORDER

¶66

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.101871/2015 by the insurance company and MFA Crob. No.100167/2015 by the petitioner are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 passed in MVC No.536/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Koppal.

¶67

MFA No.101876/2015 is filed the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 passed in MVC No.535/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Koppal.

¶68

All these three appeals arise out of the same accident. Hence, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.

¶69

Brief facts leading rise to filing of these appeals are as follows:

¶70

On 25.08.2011, the petitioner in MVC No.536/2011 as a pillion rider along with the rider Bheemappa i.e., the petitioner in MVC No.535/2011 were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.TVS XL Moped No.KA26/K-910 on extreme left side of the road on Koppal-Hospet

¶71

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

NH 63 near Raju Petrol Bunk, at that time, the driver of the tanker vehicle bearing registration No.KA-43/929 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle. Due to the heavy impact, the petitioner and the rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They filed a claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions.

¶74

Notice was issued to the driver and owner of the canter/offending vehicle. Though they appeared through counsel but did not file the statement of objections.

¶75

The insurance company filed statement of

¶76

objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, prays

¶77

7 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

to dismiss the claim petitions against the insurance company.

¶81

The Tribunal tried both the claim petitions separately and separate issues were framed.

¶82

The petitioner in MVC No.536/2011 was examined as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 58 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-58. In rebuttal, the insurance company examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked one document as Ex.R-1.

¶83

The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,41,763/- with interest at 6% p.a. form the date of the petition till realization and held that the respondents i.e. the Manager, Future General India Insurance Company and Sri. B. Ramakrishna, owner of the tanker, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the insurance company and one Sri. Ramakrishna to deposit the compensation amount.

¶84

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

In MVC No.535/2011, the petitioner examined

¶87

himself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 76 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-76. In rebuttal, the insurance company examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R1 to R5.

¶88

The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,952/- with interest at 6% p.a. form the date of the petition till its realisation and held the insurance company and the owner of the tanker i.e. B. Ramakrishna jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed them to deposit the compensation amount.

¶89

The insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.535/2011 and 536/2011 preferred the appeals in MFA Nos.101876/2015 and MFA No.101871/2015. The petitioner in MVC No.536/2011 filed MFA Crob. No.100167/2015 being

¶90

9 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶94

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶95

the learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶96

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a LMV driving licence. He submits that there is a breach of policy conditions and the laden weight of the offending vehicle is more than 9,600kgs. Hence, the Tribunal without considering the said aspect committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals filed by the insurance company and to dismiss the cross objection filed by the petitioner.

¶97

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the owner of the tanker and the insurance company. He submits that, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle

¶98

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

possessed a LMV driving licence and there is no bar for a person holding LMV licence to drive a transport vehicle and he is competent to drive a transport vehicle. To buttress his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3668. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.536/2011 is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the cross objection and dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company.

¶101

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶102

The point that would arise for consideration in these appeals is regarding quantum of compensation and liability.

¶103

There is no dispute regarding to the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioners in the both the claim petitions.

¶104

11 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

The petitioner to prove that the accident occurred

¶108

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, produced the charge sheet at Ex.P-6 which discloses that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/tanker.

¶109

Regarding liability : The insurance company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections contending that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a LMV(non-transport) licence. The vehicle involved in the accident is a transport goods vehicle. As of the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence and it is also contended that the insurance company examined the RTO as RW.1 who in his cross examination has admitted that the driver of the offending vehicle is not personally known to him and he admitted that he is not aware of the details of the driving licence obtained by the driver of the offending vehicle and he does not know whether medium vehicle weighs

¶110

12 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

7500 kgs after unloading of the goods. It was suggested to RW.1 that as of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was weighing only 7500 kgs. The said fact was not denied by RW.1 but he expressed his ignorance. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a driving licence of LMV. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal v. Rajesh and others reported in (2017) 8 SCC 590 referring to the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) held as follows:

¶114

“2. This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle?

¶115

3. We have answered the question that the driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.”

¶116

and further held that there is no breach of the conditions of

¶117

the policy and in fastening the liability jointly and severally on the owner, driver and insurer.

¶118

13 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

Considering the proposition of law laid down by

¶122

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal (supra), the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a driving licence of LMV and he is competent to drive a transport vehicle. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the fastening of liability on the insurance company.

¶123

[

¶124

In view of the same, the point on liability is answered accordingly.

¶125

Regarding quantum of compensation : The

¶126

petitioner in MVC No.536/2011 contended that he was working in Rajalaxmi Private Hardware shop at Koppal and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month from harvesting machine. The petitioner in order to prove his income has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karantaka Legal Services Authority. The accident

¶127

14 -

¶128

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

occurred in 2011. The notional income is taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner to prove the disability, examined the Doctor as PW.2, who opined that the petitioner has suffered a disability to an extent of 35%. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 11%. The disability assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for interference in that regard. He petitioner is aged 49 years old as of the date of the accident and the multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘13’. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this court re-assess the

¶131

compensation under the following heads:

¶132

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.	Compensation re-assessed by this Court Rs.
1	Loss of future income (6,000x12x13x11%)	98,326/-	1,02,960/-
2	Pain and suffering	5,000/-	25,000/-
3	Medical expenses	35,437/-	35,437/-
4	Food, nourishment , etc	3,000/-	15,000/-
5	Loss of amenities		20,000/-
	TOTAL	1,41,763/-	1,98,397/-

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶134

15 -

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

Thus, the petitioner in MVC No.536/2011 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,98,397/- as against Rs.1,41,763/-. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.56,634/-.

¶137

In view of the same, the point on quantum is answered in favour of the petitioner.

¶138

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶139

ORDER

¶140

i. MFA No.101871/2015 and MFA No.101876/2015 filed by the insurance company are dismissed.

¶141

ii. MFA Crob. No.100167/2015 filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 7.4.2015 in MVC No.536/2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Koppal is modified. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.56,634/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12896 MFA.CROB No. 100167 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101871 of 2015 MFA No. 101876 of 2015

¶143