Yogesha Vs Prathapa @ Naveen

PRATHAPA @ NAVEEN S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, GARUDANAHALLI VILLAGE, (NANDIGOWDANA KOPPALU), HANAGALLI POST, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶17

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., 36/10, 1ST FLOOR, MYSURU TRADE CENTER,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, B.N. ROAD, MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GEN.INS.CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE, NEAR N R CIRCLE, HASSAN.

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2026, R1 IS SET EXPARTY)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1911/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, ARAKALAGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

IN MFA NO. 2460/2024

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SARASA W/O YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SHAMBHUNATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT .

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

PRATHAPA @ NAVEEN S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, GARUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶31

- 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

(NANDIGOWDANA KOPPALU), HANAGALLI POST, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶34

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., 36/10, 1ST FLOOR, MYSURU TRADE CENTER, OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, B.N. ROAD, MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GEN.INS.CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE, NEAR N R CIRCLE, HASSAN.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2026, R1 IS SET EXPARTY)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1912/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶38

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

¶39

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

IN MFA NO.2435/2024

¶45

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 11.08.2022 passed in MVC Nos.1911/2018 and 1912/2018. However, MFA No.2435/2024 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.1911/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Arakalagud, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶46

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶47

The petitioner/Yogesha claimant met with an accident on 19.10.2017 and filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.5,38,640/- with interest at the rate of 6%

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the charge sheet was filed against the driver for not having a valid driving licence and on that ground, the Tribunal held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The petitioner/injured relied upon the decision reported in Rukmini9s case (1999 ACJ 171) and other related judgments, to show that mere production of charge sheet is not enough for discharge of burden for not having of driving license. However, as per Pappu and Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another¹ case , the petitioner is entitled to "pay and recovery". It is further contended that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was treated as an inpatient for 28 days. But the Tribunal awarded only meagre amounts under other heads. The petitioner/injured suffered 35% disability to the right lower limb and 14% disability to the left lower limb. As per the

¶51

1 2018 (3) SCC 308

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

medical evidence, he was unable to attend any work at least for a period of six months. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of future prospects for six months. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶55

Though it is stated that the petitioner was doing agricultural work, Shamiyana and Milk Vending Business, earning Rs.25,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2017, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.11,000/per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner/injured was aged 45 years and the relevant multiplier is '14'. As per Ex.P.5wound certificate, the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

¶56

"i. Severe crush injury in right foot and ankle with fracture calcanium with soft tissue loss with complete avulsion of heel pad.

¶57

ii. Extensor tendon injury right knee with joint exposed.

¶58

iii. 3^rd metacarpal fracture right.

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

iv. Abrasion forehead.

¶62

v. Tenderness chest.

¶63

vi. Tenderness TL spine."

¶64

Injury Nos. 1 to 3 are grievous in nature.

¶65

CW.1-doctor stated that the petitioner

¶66

underwent surgery and also assessed the physical disability at 35% to the right lower limb and 14% to the left lower limb, total 49%. The Tribunal rightly considered 1/3^rd of the same i.e., 16%, as the functional disability. The loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.2,95,680/- (11,000 x 12 x 14 x 16%). The petitioner was hospitalized for 28 days. Considering his occupation, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-

¶67

towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges and the same is confirmed. The petitioner might not have attended to any other work at

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

least for a period of four months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.44,000/- (11,000 x 4) is awarded towards loss of income during the laid-up period. The petitioner has incurred Rs.2,19,600/- towards medical expenses, the Tribunal already granted the said amount and it is confirmed.

¶71

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶72

is as below:

¶73

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	50,000/-
2.	Towards medical expenses	2,19,600/-
3.	Towards loss of amenities	30,000/-
4.	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
5.	Towards loss of income during laid up period	44,000/-
6.	Towards loss of future earning capacity	2,95,680/-
	Total	6,69,280/-

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶77

total compensation of Rs.6,69,280/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶78

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶81

ii. The judgment and award dated 11.08.2022 passed in MVC No.1911/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Arakalagud, is modified.

¶82

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,69,280/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.5,38,640/granted by the tribunal.

¶83

iv. The Tribunal fastened the liability on owner

¶84

of the vehicle. As such, the insurance company has not deposited any amount, as

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶86

10 -

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

it is a case of no valid driving licence. This Court finds it reasonable to invoke the principle of <pay and recovery,= as laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in

¶89

Pappu and Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another² . Accordingly, respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,69,280/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.

¶90

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

¶91

vi. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶92

2 2018 (3) SCC 308

¶93

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

IN MFA NO.2460/2024

¶96

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 11.08.2022 passed in MVC Nos.1911/2018 and 1912/2018. However, MFA No.2460/2024 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.1912/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Arakalagud, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶97

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶98

The petitioner/Sarasa met with an accident on 19.10.2017 and filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,59,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that as it is a case of no valid driving licence, the petitioner is entitled to <pay and recovery= as per the law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in

¶103

Pappu and Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another³ . It is further stated that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under other heads. The petitioner/injured was an inpatient for six days and could not attend to any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶104

The petitioner/injured filed Ex.P.11-wound

¶105

certificate and as per the said wound certificate, she sustained the following injuries:

¶106

"i. Fracture of scaphoid left,

¶107

ii. Laceration left index finger and iii. Abrasion forehead.=

¶108

3 2018 (3) SCC 308

¶109

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

Out of the said injuries, injury No.1 is grievous in

¶112

nature.

¶113

The petitioner/injured was hospitalized for a period of six days. CW.1-doctor assessed the disability of the petitioner/Sarasa at 18% to the left upper limb in relation to the hand and lumbar spine. The Tribunal has rightly considered 1/3^rd of the same i.e., 6%, as the disability. The petitioner was aged 40 years and the relevant multiplier is 8159. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.1,18,800/- (11,000 x 12 x 15 x 6%). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same is confirmed. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, and attendant charges. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,300/- towards medical expenses, which is confirmed. The petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.33,000/-

¶114

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

(11,000 x 3) is awarded towards loss of income during the

¶117

laid-up period. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and the same is confirmed.

¶118

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶119

is as below:

¶120

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	30,000/-
2.	Towards medical expenses	15,300/-
3.	Towards loss of amenities	10,000/-
4.	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
5.	Towards loss of income during laid up period	33,000/-
6.	Towards loss of future earning capacity	1,18,800/-
	Total	2,37,100/-

¶121

7. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶122

total compensation of Rs.2,37,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶123

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶126

ORDER

¶127

vii. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶128

viii. The judgment and award dated 11.08.2022

¶129

passed in MVC No.1912/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Arakalagud, is modified.

¶130

ix. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,37,100/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.1,59,700/granted by the tribunal.

¶131

x. The Tribunal fastened the liability on owner of the vehicle. As such, the insurance company has not deposited any amount, as it is a case of no valid driving licence. This Court finds it reasonable to invoke the principle of <pay and recovery,= as laid

¶132

NC: 2026:KHC:18305 MFA No. 2435 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 2460 of 2024

¶133

16 -

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in

¶136

Pappu and Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba

¶137

and Another⁴ . Accordingly, respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,37,100/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.

¶138

xi. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶139

xii. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶140

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶141

AMA

¶142

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

¶143

4 2018 (3) SCC 308

Yogesha v. Prathapa @ Naveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesha v. Prathapa @ Naveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prema K Vs Mubarak Sharif @ Mubharak Sharif

Smt. Narasamma Vs the Managing Director

Hemanth K @ Hemanth Kumar Vs Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd.

Smt Mohini Rai @ Mohini Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Hemalatha. B. S. Vs Sri. Manjunath. M

Misba Banu Vs Mohammed Abu Saleh