- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9627/2017 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9628/2017 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1679/2018 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1681/2018 (MV-D) IN MFA NO. 9627/2017 BETWEEN: M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. R LAKSHMI W/O LATE N.RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 2. KUM. R. NAVITHA D/O LATE N.RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS 3. SRI NAVANI S/O LATE N.RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.R.LAKSHMI Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 4. SMT.NARAYANAMMAL @ NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT NO.3-412/7 KATHRIPALLI, ALUR, PERANDAPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMILNADU - 635 109. 5. SRI RAVI KUMAR M. S/O MUNIYAPPA NO.1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:14.07.2023) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3200/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,79,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 9628/2017 BETWEEN: M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL … APPELLANT (BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.LALITHA W/O LATE N. SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2. KUM. S. SATHYA @ BABY D/O LATE N. SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 3. SRI. SATHISH BABU S/O LATE N. SRINIVASAN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.LALITHA 4. SMT. NARAYANAMMAL @ NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.3-399, KATHRIPALLI, ALUR, PERANDAPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI TAMIL NADU - 635 109 5. SRI. RAVI KUMAR M S/O MUNIYAPPA NO.1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:14.07.2023) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3201/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,35,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 1679/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.LALITHA W/O LATE SRINIVASAN @ SRINIVAS AGED 28 YEARS 2. KUM. SATHYA S @ BABY S D/O LATE SRINIVASAN @ SRINIVAS AGED 15 YEARS 3. SATHISH BABU S S/O LATE SRINIVASAN @ SRINIVAS AGED 10 YEARS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 APPELLANTS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FIRST APPELLANT VIZ., SMT. LALITHA. 4. SMT. NARAYANAMMAL @ NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA AGED 52 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.3/399, KATHRIPALLI, ALUR, PERANDAPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMILNADU – 635 109 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.28, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 2. RAVI KUMAR M S/O MUNIYAPPA MAJOR NO.1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU-560 007 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:06.03.2021) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3201/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 1681/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.R.LAKSHMI W/O LATE N RAJENDRAN AGED 24 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 2. KUM R NAVITHA D/O LATE N RAJENDRAN AGED 8 YEARS 3. NAVANI S/O LATE N RAJENDRAN AGED 7 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FIRST APPELLANT VIZ., SMT R LAKSHMI 4. SMT NARAYANAMMAL @ NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA AGED 52 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.3-412/7, KATHRIPALLI, ALUR, PERANDAPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI TAMILNADU – 635 109 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING NO.28, M G ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 2. RAVI KUMAR M S/O MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR #1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE ANEKAL, BENGALURU – 560 007 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:06.03.2021) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3200/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) These appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 07.10.2017 in MVC Nos.3200/2016 and 3201/2016 passed by MACT and Court of Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH 15). 2. For the purpose of convenience. the parties are referred to according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. The particulars of the claim petitions and corresponding appeals are as below: Sl. No. M.F.A.No. M.V.C.No. Appellant 1. 9627/2017 3200/2016 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd 2. 1681/2018 3200/2016 Wife, children and mother of deceased Srinivasan 3 9628/2017 3201/2016 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. 4. 1679/2018 3201/2016 Wife, children and mother of deceased Srinivasan - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 4. Victims Rajendran and Srinivasan were full brothers. On 27.02.2016 at 11.40 p.m. when they were travelling in tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA 05 AD 6624 near Singasandra bus stop within the limits of Electronic City Traffic Police Station, the lorry hit the road median, then crossing road median hit car bearing No.KA-03 MP 7507 which was coming from the opposite direction in the other lane and ultimately toppled. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident Rajendran and Srinivasan died on the spot. At the relevant time respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the Insurer and registered owner of lorry bearing registration No.KA-05 AD 6624 respectively. 5. Regarding the accident the driver-cum-owner of the car bearing No.KA-03-MP-7507 filed complaint/Ex.P1(a) before the Electronic City Traffic Police against the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing No.KA 05 AD 6624. Based on the said complaint Electronic City Police registered FIR against the driver of the Tipper lorry and on investigation said police filed charge sheet as per Ex.P5 against the driver of the lorry for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304(A) and Sections - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 134(A) and (B) read with 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Wife, children and mother of Rajendran filed MVC No.3200/2016 and wife, children and mother of Srinivasan filed MVC No.3201/2016 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents alleging that accident and consequential deaths of Rajendran and Srinivasan occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.KA 05 AD 6624. Deceased Rajendran and Srinivasan were travelling in the said lorry as cleaner/coolie and loader and were earning Rs.600 and 800 respectively. Claimants contended that they were depending on the income of the deceased, due to their deaths they have suffered damages and respondents are liable to pay compensation for such damages. 7. Respondents contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, age, avocation and income of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation. Respondent No.1/the Insurer contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the deceased were traveling in the lorry as - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 unauthorized passengers, thereby there was breach of policy conditions. Thus respondent No.1 contended that it is not liable to indemnify the damages. Respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the lorry was holding valid/effective driving licence and insurance policy issued by the first respondent covering the risk of the lorry was in force. Therefore, liability if any is payable by respondent No.1. 8. In support of their claim claimant No.1 of the respective petitions were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25. Officer of the first respondent was examined as RW.1 and on its behalf Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 9. Tribunal on hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence held that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of tipper lorry bearing No.KA 05 AD 6624. Tribunal further held that respondent No.1/Insurer failed to establish its defence regarding breach of policy conditions etc. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,79,000/- in MVC No.3200/2016 and Rs.13,35,000/- in MVC No.3201/2016 and held that the same - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 shall be paid by respondent No.1/Insurer with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 10. Challenging the said award Insurer has preferred MFA Nos.9627/2017 and 9628/2017. Questioning adequacy of compensation awarded, claimants have preferred MFA Nos.1679/2018 and 1681/2018 as aforesaid. Submissions of Sri D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the Insurer: 11. The evidence on record clearly shows that Rajendran and Srinivasan were brothers and they were traveling in the lorry belonging to respondent No.2 which was registered in Karnataka. That circumstance goes to show that they were traveling as unauthorized passengers in the lorry and they were not appointed by the second respondent as alleged. Despite respondent No.2 contesting the petition, he did not produce the driving licence of driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Tribunal without proper appreciation of the evidence erroneously held that the first respondent has failed to prove its defence. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to deceased - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 being the employees in the lorry in question and the driving licence of the driver being valid, are erroneous and liable to be set aside and Insurer has to be exonerated. There are no to grounds enhance the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. However, interest of 8% awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Submissions of Sri K.V.Shyamaprasad, learned counsel for the claimants: 12. The charge-sheet records clearly show that deceased were traveling in the lorry as coolie and cleaner. To rebut the said evidence respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence. Respondent No.2 does not dispute the relationship of employer and employee. The Insurer did not prove its defence that driver of the lorry was not holding effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Further RW.1 did not whisper anything about the deceased being unauthorized passengers. The Tribunal on judicious appreciation of the evidence has rejected the claim of the Insurer regarding its liability. The notional income assessed is on the lower side. Tribunal has failed to award future prospects on income of the deceased. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 The compensation awarded on other heads also needs to be enhanced. 13. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following judgments: i) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1 ii) Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram2 iii) Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3 iv) Rukmani and others vs. New India Assurance Co. & Ors4 14. Considering the submissions of both sides and on examining the materials on record, the points that arise for determination of the Court are: (i) Whether compensation awarded in MVC No.3200/2016 is just ? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded in MVC No.3201/2016 is just ? (iii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurer has failed to prove its defence is sustainable ? ANALYSIS 15. The parties have not disputed that the lorry bearing No.KA 05 AD 6624 and car bearing No.KA 03 MP 7507 were involved in the accident. The finding of the Tribunal that the 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 2 2018 (18) SCC 130 3 AIR 2009 SC 3104 4 (1998)9 SCC 160 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the tipper lorry and claimants being the legal representatives of deceased Rajendran and Srinivasan, is also not in dispute. The dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation and liability of the Insurer. Reg: Quantum of compensation in MVC No.3200/2016. 16. Claimant Nos.1 to 3 in MVC No.3200/2016 are the wife and children of deceased Rajendran. They claim that he was aged 28 years, working as lorry cleaner and earning Rs.600/- per day. In both cases, no proof of actual income of the deceased was produced. The Tribunal notionally assessed the income of Rajendran at Rs.8000/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses, based on Ex.P12/Aadhar card considered his age as 30 years, applied 17 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.12,24,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded Rs.14,79,000/- on different heads as under: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 12,24,000/- 2. Loss of consortium 50,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- 4. Loss of estate 80,000/- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 5. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 25,000/- Total 14,79,000/- 17. As per Ex.P12/Adhar card of the deceased his date of birth was 10.01.1986. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in considering his age as 30 years i.e., his completed age as on the date of accident. Considering the wage rates and cost of living during the year 2016 notional income of Rs.8,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. On a very reasonable assessment the Tribunal should have considered the monthly income at Rs.9,500/-. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra having regard to the age and employment of the deceased 40% has to be super added to his income by way of future prospects. In view of the judgment in Sarla verma’s case referred to supra as in both the cases one-fourth had been deducted towards his personal expenses and applicable multiplier was 17. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay sethi and Magma general Insurance cases referred to supra each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of 40,000/- with escalation of 10% on the heads of spousal, filial and parental consortium. In view of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000+15,000 on the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses with escalation of 10% on each head. Therefore, just compensation payable for the death of Rajendran is as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 9500+3800=13300 X3/4 = 9975 X 12 X17 20,34,900/- 2. Loss of consortium 44000 X4 1,76,000/- 3. Loss of Estate 16,500/- 4. Funeral expenses 16,500/- Total 22,43,900/- Less awarded by Tribunal 14,79,000/- Enhanced compensation 7,64,900/- Reg. Quantum of compensation in MVC No.3201/2016. 18. In MVC No.3201/ 2016 the claimants contended that the deceased Srinivasan was working as coolie in the lorry and earning Rs.800/- per day. Similar to the case of Rajendran there was no proof of actual income and in this case also considering the age, occupation of the deceased, the cost of living and prevailing wage rates during the relevant time notional income has to be assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 As per Ex.P22/Voter ID card of deceased Srinivasan his age as on 01.01.2006 was 28 years. Therefore, as rightly held by the Tribunal as on the date of accident he was 38 years. Having regard to the age of the deceased and his employment 40% has to be super added to his income. In this case, the deceased had 4 dependants. Therefore, 1/4th has to be deducted for his personal expenses. Applicable multiplier is 15. In this case also each of the claimants are entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- with escalation of 10%, compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on the head of funeral expenses with escalation of 10% on each head. Therefore just compensation payable in this case is as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 9500+3800=13300 X3/4 = 9975 X 12 X15 17,95,500/- 2. Loss of Consortium 44000 X4 1,76,000/- 3. Loss of Estate 16,500/- 4. Funeral expenses 16,500/- Total 20,04,500/- Less awarded by Tribunal 13,35,000/- Enhanced compensation 6,69,500/- - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 Reg. liability of insurer. 19. Liability of the Insurer is disputed before this Court on two grounds viz., that the deceased were unauthorized passengers and not the employees of respondent No.2, secondly the driver of the tipper lorry was not holding valid licence as on the date of the accident. When the Insurer takes a defence, it is settled law that burden of proving such defence is on the Insurer. So far as the victims being the employees, the said fact was not specifically disputed by respondent No.2/employer. Neither he disputed that in the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 nor he entered the witness box to deny the said fact. Charge sheet/Ex.P5 is relied on by both the parties. In the charge sheet/Ex.P5 as well as inquest mahazars of the victims it is stated that the victims were traveling in the lorry as cleaner/loader. PWs.1 and 2 in their cross examination denied the suggestion of counsel for the Insurer that the victim were traveling in the lorry as unauthorized passengers. RW.1 in his affidavit filed by way of chief examination did not whisper that the victims were traveling in the lorry as unauthorized passengers. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 20. So far as the driver of the lorry not holding effective driving licence except bare denial on the part of the Insurer, no evidence was adduced to prove the said defence. As against that RW.1 in his chief examination itself stated that the driver of the insured lorry was authorized to drive LMV(NT) from 01.04.2008 to 14.07.2027. He got renewed his driving licence for the period 08.12.2016 to 07.12.2019 (TR). Even to prove the said statement, no material was produced. In the judgment in Rukmani’s case referred to supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the Insurer takes a defence of driver not holding valid driving licence, the burden of proof lies on the Insurer. In that case at least the inspector of Police who investigated the criminal case was examined. Still Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the Insurance company contends that driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence, the burden is on the Insurance company to establish such contention and that the evidence of investigating officer is also not sufficient and the evidence inspector of motor vehicle had to be adduced to show that the driver was not having licence to drive the vehicle. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 21. The coordinate bench of this Court in Legal Manager, Iffico Tokio GIC Ltd., Bangalore vs. Smt. Nagendram Lachi and others5 relying on several earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment held that in order to avoid the liability to pay compensation, it is the duty of the Insurance company to place satisfactory evidence to prove that driver of the vehicle had no valid licence or the licence said to have been possessed by him is fake licence. It was further held that the Insurer must not only establish available defences raised but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle or show that the Insured has also contributed for the accident by allowing the person not having valid licence or having a fake licence. 22. In the light of such principle, it is not open to the Insurer to contend that the Court should draw an adverse inference against claimants for failure of the insured to tender his evidence. In the present case, charge sheet was not filed against the driver of the lorry for driving lorry without holding a driving licence or effective driving licence. Though the charge sheet is not a conclusive proof, the same has a presumptive 5 ILR 2019 Kar 5361 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 value. The Insurer in the present case failed to rebut the presumption under the said document. The Tribunal on considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances rightly held that the Insurer has failed to prove its defence and it has to indemnify the damages caused to the claimants. 23. Tribunal did not offer any justification in awarding interest at 8% per annum on the compensation. The claim petitions were preferred in 2016. Without any delay petitions were disposed of within a year of filing the same. In our considered view, it would be just and proper to award interest at 6% p.a. on the compensation amount. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals of the Insurer as well as the claimants deserve to be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER MFA Nos.9627/2017, 9628/2017, 1679/2018 & 1681/2018 are partly allowed. The impugned awards are modified as follows: I) The claimants in MVC No.3200/2016 are awarded compensation of Rs.22,43,900/- and the claimants in MVC No.3201/2016 are awarded compensation of - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB MFA No.9627/2017 C/W MFA No.9628/2017 MFA No.1679/2018 MFA No.1681/2018 Rs.20,04,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. ii) Respondent No.1/Insurer shall deposit the aforesaid compensation before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. iii) The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment of the shares amongst the claimants and investment is maintained. iv) The amount in deposit, if any, and the TCRs shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38