- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8389 OF 2017 C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 150 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 8389/2017: BETWEEN: 1. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO 28., 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE (V/C)) AND: 1. SMT SAMEEN BANU @ SAMEENA W/O LATE SALEEM PASHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 2. KUMARI SULTANA D/O LATE AFZAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 3. KUMARI MOSEENA BANU D/O LATE AFZAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE PETITIONER No.3 IS MINOR REP BY HER GUARDIAN/ SISTER IN LAW R-1 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 16, 12TH CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE- 560026 EARLIER RESIDING AT WARD NO 7, HOSAPETE MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 4. SMT THABSUM W/O HABIB SAB, MAJOR, NO 118A, 3RD CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, SLUM RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SUSHMITHA.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA.N, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4 - THABSUM - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.7055/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM MEMBER MACT BENGALURU (SCCH-5), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,58,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA.CROB NO. 150/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SMT SAMEENA BANU @ SAMEENA W/O LATE SALEEM PASHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2. KUM SULTANA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 D/O LATE AFZAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. KUM MOSEENA BANU D/O LATE AFZAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/A NO.16, 12TH CROSS PADARAYANAPURA CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU-560026 ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. Ms. SUSHMITHA.G, FOR SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA.N, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28, 5TH FLOOR EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS MANAGER 2. MRS THABSUM W/O HABIB SAB MAJOR BY AGE R/A NO.118A 3RD CROSS, INDIRANAGAR SLUM RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 (V/C); VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:23.10.2024, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC.NO.7055/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH- 5 PARTLY ALLOWING - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH MFA CROB., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. MFA.No.8389/2017 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.08.2017 passed by the VIII Additional SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru (for short, the Tribunal) in MVC.No.7055/2016 on the grounds of liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas, MFA.CROB.No.150/2021 is filed by the claimants/cross objectors for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.09.2016 at around 2.30 am, Saleem Pasha (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') and his friends were proceeding towards Murugamalla Dargha, near Chinthamani from Bengaluru in Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-A-2605, when the said car reached near Gollapalligadda Village, Chinthamani-Murugamalla road, the driver of the above said Car driven the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner in a curve and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the side tree and the car toppled and fell on the road, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Hence, the dependants/claimants had filed claim petition before the Tribunal, same was allowed-in-part. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company and claimants have filed these appeals. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 5. Sri D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company, whereas the driver of the car was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the owner of the car. 6. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering Ex.P.13- Driver details, same was fabricated document and produced only for the purpose of this case to get more compensation and the same is not in accordance with law. 7. Further, the Tribunal has granted high and exorbitant compensation under conventional heads. The Tribunal has awarded a high and exorbitant interest at the rate of 9% and the same has to be reduced to 6% per annum. Thus, he prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supports the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and also contended that the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month which is on lower side. The deceased, prior to this accident, was working as an auto driver and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In fact, the accident is of the year 2016. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month. 9. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased as there are three dependants. Thus, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned counsel for the claimants, the following points that would arise for our consideration are: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 (i) Whether the appellant - Insurance Company has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence and Ex.P-13- Driving Licence of the deceased of offending vehicle was a fake document, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for any enhancement or reduction? 11. Insofar as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the appellant - Insurance Company contended that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. In support of its contention, the appellant- Insurance Company relied upon I.A.No.1/2017 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC for seeking production of additional evidence i.e. Letter dated 12.09.2017 requesting to provide the DL Extract in respect of Mr.Khaja Navaz Khan S/o Habibulla Khan vide DL.No.KA09 20120005628 addressed to the Regional Transport Officer, RTO, Mysore (West) however the said - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 licence was not standing in his name but the same is standing in the name of Hussain Shifadh Mohammed. In this case, neither the RTO nor the owner and driver of the offending vehicle appeared before this Court. The claimants have not filed any objections to the I.A.No.1/2017. 12. We have perused the IA, affidavit and satisfied with the grounds urged in the application. Hence, we have considered I.A.No.1/2017. From perusal of Ex.P-13- particulars of Accused No.1 i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie it appears that the DL particulars furnished by the claimants appears to be fake and thus the same was created as on the date of accident. It clearly demonstrates that, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. GEETA DEVI AND OTHERS at - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 Para Nos.14, 15 and 16 reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1398, held as under: "14. More recently, in Ram Chandra Singh vs. Rajaram and others, the issue before this Court was whether an insurance company could be absolved of liability on the ground that the insured vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. This Court found that no attempt was made to ascertain whether the owner was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver and held that it is only if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake but still permitted such driver to drive the vehicle that the insurer would stand absolved. It was unequivocally held that the mere fact that the driving licence was fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer. 15. Applying the aforestated edicts to the case on hand, it may be noted that the petitioner-insurance company did not even raise the plea that the owner of the vehicle allowed Ujay Pal to drive the vehicle knowing that his licence was fake. Its stand was that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the victim himself. Further, the insurance policy did not require the vehicle owner to undertake - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 verification of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle by getting the same confirmed with the RTO. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner-insurance company that it has the right to recover the compensation from the owners of the vehicle, owing to a willful breach of the condition of the insurance policy, viz., to ensure that the vehicle was driven by a licenced driver, is without pleading and proof. 16. As already pointed out supra, once a seemingly valid driving licence is produced by a person employed to drive a vehicle, unless such licence is demonstrably fake on the face of it, warranting any sensible employer to make inquiries as to its genuineness, or when the period of the licence has already expired, or there is some other reason to entertain a genuine doubt as to its validity, the burden is upon the insurance company to prove that there was a failure on the part of the vehicle owner in carrying out due diligence apropos such driving licence before employing that person to drive the vehicle. Presently, no evidence has been placed on record whereby an inference could be drawn that the deceased vehicle owner ought to have gotten verified Ujay Pal's driving licence. Therefore, it was for the petitioner-insurance company to prove willful breach on the part of the said vehicle owner. As no such exercise was undertaken, the petitioner-insurance - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 company would have no right to recover the compensation amount from the present owners of the vehicle. The impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court holding to that effect, therefore, does not brook interference either on facts or in law." 13. The Insurance Company cannot absolve its liability from paying compensation. It is well settled law that the insurer is liable to pay the third party and recover the same from the insured even if there is breach of any condition recognized under Section 149(2) of the MV act, even if it is a fundamental breach (that is breach of condition which is the cause for the accident) and the insurer proves that the said breach in view of the mandate under Section 149(1) of the Act. [See:'NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. LAXMI NARAIN DHUT' reported in (2007) 3 SCC 700, 'ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. BRIJ MOHAN AND OTHERS' reported in (2007) 7 SCC 56 AND 'SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 'ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 OTHERS.' reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 and full bench decision of this Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2239. "If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and failure of driver and owner of the offending vehicle to appear before the Court, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation." Directions may be issued to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as per the ratio laid down in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. cited supra. 14. cited supra. 14. Hence, we direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 15. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month which is on the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 meager side. The accident is of the year 2016 and no documentary evidence is recorded based on the income of the deceased in that regard. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month. 16. The deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. The appellant - Insurance Company has not disputed this aspect. Hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of the deceased is '16'. 17. The deceased died leaving behind his wife and two unmarried sisters. Hence, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. 18. The Tribunal has considered the future prospects of the deceased at 50% which is high and exorbitant one. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that, if the deceased is within the age group of 30 - 40 years, then 40% of the income of the deceased would be added as future prospects. Hence, the loss of dependency is reckoned as under: Rs.9,500 + (40%) = Rs.13,300/- Rs.13,300 - Rs.4,433 (1/3rd) = Rs.8,867/- Rs.8,867 x 12 x 16 = Rs.17,02,464/-. 19. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding fair compensation under conventional heads. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRURAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017(16) SCC 680, the claimants are entitled towards ‘loss of consortium’ at Rs.40,000/- each which comes to the total of Rs.1,20,000/-, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- for ‘funeral expenses’. 20. The interest in the case of M/s. JOYEETA BOSE vs. VENKATESHAN V in MFA.No.5896/2018 and connected cases disposed of on 24.08.2020, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum which is higher and exorbitant one. In view of the ratio laid down in JOYEETA's case referred (supra), we are reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum which is fair and reasonable one in terms of Section 34 of CPC. 21. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 17,02,464.00 Loss of consortium 1,20,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 TOTAL 18,52,464.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 14,58,000.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 3,94,464.00 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 22. In the result, we pass the following: O R D E R i. The appeals are allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.18,52,464/- as against Rs.14,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. iii. However, the claimants are not entitled for the interest for a period of four years as the appellant - Insurance Company filed this appeal in the year 2017 whereas the claimants have filed MFA.CROB.No.150/2021 in the year 2021. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for any interest on the enhanced compensation for a period of four years. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 iv. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. vi. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation first and shall recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. vii. Liberty is granted in favour of the appellant - Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. viii. The appellant - Insurance Company is also permitted to implead the driver as well as the owner of the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34270-DB MFA No. 8389 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 150 of 2021 offending vehicle before the Tribunal for the purpose of recovery. ix. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. x. Draw modified award accordingly. xi. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off, as they do not survive for any consideration. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36