National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Sushanth

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4960 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4959 OF 2013 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8578 OF 2013 (MV-

¶10

I)

¶11

IN MFA No. 4960/2013

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., UDUPI BRANCH

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP BY ITS ADMN OFFICER SMT D KARTHIKA

¶16

(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI SUSHANTH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O SHYAMA PUJARY RESIDENT OF 'SUSHMITH NILAYA' PANDU BETTUR AMBALPADY UDUPI TALUK - 577201.

¶19

…APPELLANT

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

MR RIYAZ

¶23

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O MR SIDDAYABBA 'RIYAZ MANZIL' INDIRA NAGAR, HALEYANGADI, MANGALORE - 577 101 (OWNER OF AUTORIKSHAW NO.KA.19/3-6403)

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. RAJESH SHATTIGAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.956/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.20,000/- WITH INTEREST 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 4959/2013

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., UDUPI BRANCH, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP. BY ITS ADMN. OFFICER, SMT. D. KARTHIKA

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SRI ABHILASH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O MADHUKARA B.SUVARNA, RESIDENT OF HANUMAN NAGAR, KOLA, MALPE POST, UDUPI TALUK - 577 201

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

MR. RIYAZ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O MR. SIDDHIYABBA, "RIYAZ MANZIL" INDIRA NAGAR, HALEYANGADI, MANGALORE - 577 101 (OWNER OF AUTORIKSHAW NO.KA.19/B-6403)

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL FOR R1.,ADVOCATE;

¶38

SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.2.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.955/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,00,170/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIAZATION.

¶40

IN MFA NO. 8578/2013

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

MR ABILASH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O MADHUKARA B. SUVARNA, HANUMAN NAGARA, KOLA, MALPE POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101

¶43

...APPELLANT

¶44

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL .,ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

SRI RIYAZ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O SIDDHIYABBA, "RIYAZ MANZIL" INDIRA NAGARA, HALEYANGADI, MANGALORE - 575 001

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH: SHANKAR BUILDING, MASIDI RASTHE, UDUPI - 576 101

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶53

SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶54

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.955/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶55

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

¶56

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶57

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶58

These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company

¶59

challenging the common judgment and award dated 15.02.2013 passed in MVC.Nos.955/2011 and 956/2011 by the learned Additional Motor Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Civil Judge, Udupi, seeking for reduction of compensation.

¶60

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

¶63

both sides.

¶64

The petitioner/injured met with an accident on 24.07.2011 and filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal for claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,00,170/- and Rs.20,000/- global compensation together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization respectively in both the matters and further directed respondent No.2 shall indemnify the petitioners by depositing the amount within 30 days from the date of order.

¶65

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has preferred two appeals i.e., MFA.No.4960/2013 against the award of the Tribunal in MVC.No.956/2011 and MFA.No.4959/2013 against the award of the Tribunal in MVC.No.955/2011.

¶66

In both the matters, Insurance Company contended that, the Tribunal erred in making them liable

¶67

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

to indemnify the petitioners by depositing the amount, even after establishing the statutory defence available to them under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The breach of fundamental terms of the policy has been proved by producing copy of the policy, permit pertaining to the offending vehicle by examining the RTO and thus they shall be exonerated from the liability. Though, there was permit violation, the Tribunal has not considered the same as a statutory breach and further stated that it is no way concerned to respondent No.2 as there was no such condition in the insurance policy. The said observation is made without looking into the policy under Ex.R1 policy produced by them through RTO Official. Even as per Mandatory Provisions of MV Act, if the person uses the vehicle outside the permit area, it is in violation of the law. But it was not considered by the Tribunal and the said observation is to be set aside.

¶70

The Insurance Company raised objection regarding permit violation and also examined RWs.1 and

¶71

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Considering the entire evidence of respondents the

¶74

Tribunal observed that, if there is violation of permit condition, the concerned authority would have taken action against the driver of the said auto rickshaw and if at all the driver of the auto rickshaw has violated the permit condition, separate action is to be taken by the concerned authority. Violation of the permit condition is no way concerned to respondent No.2, when there is no such condition in the insurance policy. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot take advantage of the violation of the condition policy by the driver of the auto rickshaw and he cannot avoid responsibility of paying the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly liable and also directed respondent No.2 to deposit the amount.

¶75

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance

¶76

Company has relied upon the citation in Rani and Others

¶77

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

V.s National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others¹ ,

¶80

the relevant paragraph No.15 reads as under:

¶81

"15. Reverting to the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 Insurance Company against Anand (M.F.A. No.5876 of 2011), as noted in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the impugned judgment reproduced above, the High Court disposed of the said appeal by absolving the insurer from the liability to pay compensation amount. As noticed earlier, the appellant (Anand) did not file any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation amount and the cross objection filed by him in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. Even in respect of this appeal, the Tribunal had found that he failed to produce any evidence regarding his monthly income and the permanent disability suffered by him had been determined as not exceeding 10% to the whole body and compensation had been awarded to him on that basis. Resultantly, we intend to dispose of this appeal on the same basis by directing the respondent No.1 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimant (Anand) in the first place, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.2)."

¶82

Thus requested this Court to order for pay and

¶83

recovery.

¶84

8. Considering the purpose of above citation, this

¶85

Court finds that it is just and proper to order for pay and

¶86

1 2018 ACJ 2430

¶87

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

recovery. The insurance company already deposited 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and directed to deposit the balance amount along with interest within one month.

¶90

The claimant has preferred an appeal in MFA.No.8578/2013 and mainly contended that he sustained three injuries. He was working at Kanchana Motor Works, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has granted meager amounts under the other heads and taken his income as Rs.5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. Thus, he requested the Court to enhance the compensation.

¶91

PW.3 - Doctor, who was examined the appellant/claimant, in his evidence stating that the appellant/claimant sustained the following injuries, out of which two are grevious in nature and one is simple in nature:

¶92

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

" The injury Nos.1 and 2 are Deep lacerated wound medical aspect of right knee 5X3c.m., communicating with the joint and fracture lateral condyle left femur articular surface ."

¶95

Though the appellant/claimant stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2011, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As he was aged 22 years, the relevant multiplier is '18'. The petitioner filed Ex.P3 - Wound Certificate and Ex.P7 - Discharge Summary and examined the doctor as PW.3 - Dr. Umesh Prabhu. The doctor assessed the disability as 12% to the left leg of the appellant/claimant. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take 1/3^rd of the same as 4%. Thus, Loss of Future Earning Capacity comes to Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 18 x 4% = Rs.56,160/- .

¶96

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

It is stated that he was admitted in the hospital

¶99

for a period of five days. Considering the nature of injuries period of hospitalization, his occupation and other relevant factors, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant Rs.30,000/- towards Transportation, Extra-

¶100

nourishment and Attending Charges .

¶101

The Tribunal has already granted Rs.30,000/-

¶102

towards Pain and Suffering , Rs.30,000/- towards Loss of Amenities , and it is confirmed.

¶103

The appellant/claimant might not have attended

¶104

any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, he is entitled for Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500X3) under the head Loss of Income during Laid-Up period .

¶105

The Tribunal has granted Rs.18,170/- towards Medical expenses , and it is confirmed.

¶106

Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation as here under:

¶107

12 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of Future Earning	56,160.00
Capacity
Transportation,	30,000.00
Expenditures and Attending Charges
Pain and Suffering	30,000.00
Loss of Amenities	30,000.00
Loss of income during laid up period	19,500.00
Medical expenses	18,170.00
Total	1,83,830.00

¶111

Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a

¶112

total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,83,830/- along

¶113

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶114

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶115

ORDER

¶116

i) The Miscellaneous First Appeals are allowed in-part .

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶118

13 -

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

ii) The judgment and award dated 15.02.2013 passed in MVC.No.955/2011 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge Udupi, is modified to the following extent:

¶121

a. The appellant/claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,83,830/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶122

b. As the owner of the vehicle has not deposited any amount, the Insurance Company already deposited 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal thus, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of one(1) month from the date of this order.

¶123

NC: 2026:KHC:35096 MFA No. 4960 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 4959 of 2013 MFA No. 8578 of 2013

¶124