Karnataka High Court
Basamma @ Basavannevva D/O Mallappa ... vs Shrikant S/O Shrinivasacharya Katti on 10 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447
MFA No. 101456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101456 OF 2021 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102476 OF 2017 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 101456/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SHRIKANT S/O SHRINIVASACHARYA KATTI
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O OF BAGEWADI, TQ. MUNDARAGI
DIST. GADAG - 582118
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B HALLI., ADV)
AND:
1. BASAMMA @ BASAVANNEVVA
D/O MALLAPPA
CHOLMMANAVAR @ HAROGERI
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by R/O HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI
VIJAYALAKSHMI M DIST. DHARWAD-580023.
KANKUPPI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
KARNATAKA COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
ENKAY 2ND COMPLEX, KESHWAPAUR,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD -580023
3. BALUSA S/O GANAPATSA MEHARWADE,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO. KA-26/4939, R/O. BALAJI ROAD,
BETGERI, GADAG -582101
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, GADAG, BY ITS, DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, SHRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET HUBBALLI- 580028
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447
MFA No. 101456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017
HC-KAR
5. SHEKAPPA S/O YALLAPPA SORATUR
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF TRACTOR
AND TRAILOR KA-26/T-6369-6370,
R/O. MACHENAHALLI, TQ. SHIRAHATTI,
DIST. GADAG -582120
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADV FOR R1,
SRI. R.S. ARANI, ADV FOR R2
SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R4
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH
NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED
IN MVC NO.106/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBBALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.26,560/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
IN MFA NO. 102476/2017
BETWEEN:
1. BASAMMA @ BASAVANNEVVA
D/O MALLAPPA CHOLAMMANAVAR,
@ HAROGERI, AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE,
R/O: HUBBALLI-580024
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADV)
AND:
1. SHRIKANT S/O SHRINIVASACHARYA KATTI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR - TRAILOR,
R/O: BAGEWADI, TQ. MUNDARAGI,
DIST. GADAG-582101
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447
MFA No. 101456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017
HC-KAR
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580029
3. BALUSA S/O GANAPATSA MEHARWADA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO. KA-26/4939, R/O: OF BALAJI ROAD,
BERAGERI, GADAG-582101
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
GADAG BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE
SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET
HUBBALLI-580029
5. SHEKAPPA S/O YELLAPPA SORATUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRAILOR,
R/O: MACHENHALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI,
DIST: GADAG-582103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHESHAGIRI S. DESAI, ADV FOR R1,
SRI. R.S. ARANI, ADV FOR R2,
SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R4
NOTICE TO R3 & R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.106/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBBALLI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447
MFA No. 101456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act, 1988" for short) which arise out of the judgment and award dated 26.10.2013, passed in MVC No.106/2012 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short).
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
On 06.09.2011, at about 9.45 a.m., the claimant was proceeding in a Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA- 26/4939 as a coolie from Hadagali to Bannikoppa. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the same in a moderate speed on the left side of the road. When the vehicle came near the accident spot, one tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-26/T-6369/6370 came in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same, and -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR dashed to the rear portion of the Tata Ace vehicle. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
3. The owner of the tractor and trailer did not file any statement of objections.
4. Both the Insurance Companies filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and also contented that the claimant has not made out any claim against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is contented that the driver of the tractor and trailer did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Companies.
5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR
6. The claimant to substantiate his case, the claimant was examined as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. Conversely, the officials of the Insurance Companies were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 26.10.2013, and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,26,560/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization of the entire amount, and held that respondent Nos.1 and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Further, the claim petition against respondent Nos.2 to 4 was dismissed.
8. The owner of the tractor and trailer, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal filed appeal in MFA No.101456/2021 challenging the liability, -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR and the claimant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed the appeal in MFA No.102476/2017 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner of the tractor and trailer, learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
10. Learned counsel for the owner of the tractor and trailer submits that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer, and has produced the driving licence of the driver of the tractor and trailer. He submits that when the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence, the Tribunal could have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. To buttress his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN V. -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663. Hence, he submits that a holder of a driving licence for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that class without requiring any separate endorsement. The distinction between transport and non-transport vehicles for LMV category was clarified and the requirement of additional endorsement was negated in the aforementioned authority. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the tractor and trailer. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the owner, and prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the accident occurred in 2011. The Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR schedule issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, i.e., Rs.6,000/- for the year 2011. However, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.3,500/-, which is on the lower side. He also submitted that the claimant examined the doctor to prove the disability who has opined that the claimant has suffered a disability to the extent of 65% wherein the Tribunal has taken the disability at 25% to the whole body, which is on the lower side. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company submits that the driver of the tractor and trailer did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the tractor and trailer. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court, and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeals filed by the owner of the tractor and trailer and the claimant.
13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and quantum of compensation.
15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant has produced certified copy of a charge sheet marked as Ex.P4. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Reg. liability :
16. The respondent-United India Insurance Company has taken a specific defence in the statement of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR objections contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident, and also examined the RTO as R.W.2, who has deposed that the driver of the tractor was possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NAGASHETTY VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 8 SCC 56, held that a person having valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor, if a trailer was attached to it. A person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle, even if a trailer is attached to it, and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR vehicle, merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. Considering the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NAGASHETTY (supra), the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, as of the date of accident, the tractor and trailer were insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the United India Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. In view of the above, the owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Reg. Quantum of compensation:
17. It is an undisputed fact that the claimant was aged about 18 years as of the date of the accident, and the accident is of 2011. The claimant contended that he is an agriculturist and used to earn Rs.6,000/- p.m. To substantiate his contention, he has not produced any income proof. In the absence of the income proof, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR at Rs.3,500/- p.m., which is on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- p.m. as per the schedule issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is '18', as per the proposition of law laid down in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
18. The Tribunal has not considered the disability assessed by the doctor at 65% to the right lower limb, but the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 25%, which is just and proper. In the light of the above, this court re- assesses the compensation as follows:
Sl. Particulars Amount of
No. compensation
awarded by this court
(In Rupees)
1 Loss of future income 3,24,000
(6,000 x 12 x 18 x 25%)
2 Pain and suffering 60,000
3 Medical expenses 1,72,500
4 Food and nourishment attendant etc. 10,000
5 Loss of amenities 25,000
6 Artificial limb and future medical 1,00,000
expenses
7 Loss of income during laid-up period 18,000
(6,000 x 3)
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447
MFA No. 101456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017
HC-KAR
Total 7,09,500
Compensation awarded by the 4,26,500
Tribunal
Compensation enhanced by this 2,83,000
Court
19. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.7,09,500/- as against Rs.4,26,500/-, awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,83,000/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation.
20. The owner of the tractor and the trailer and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally are unable to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimant. For the foregoing, the point regarding the quantum is answered accordingly.
21. In view of the discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeals are allowed in part.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified.
iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,09,500/- as against Rs.4,26,500/-, awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,83,000/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation. However, the claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 1236 days in filing the appeal
iv) As per the order dated 08.11.2022, the owner of the tractor is liable to pay interest for 2288 days to the claimant. After deducting the interest amount payable by the owner of the tractor to the claimant, the balance may be released in favour of the owner of the tractor.
v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5447 MFA No. 101456 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 102476 of 2017 HC-KAR the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
vi) The amount in deposit, if any, by the Insurance Company and the Tribunal records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
vii) Pending applications, if any shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27