- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 103397 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100117 OF 2019 IN MFA NO.103397 OF 2018 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.413, AURORA TOWERS, MG ROAD, WEST-WING, CAMP PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGANAGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANDRAWWA W/O. PARASHURAM BODANNAVAR, AGE 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUMAR MANIKANT S/O. PARASHURAM BODANNAVAR, AGE 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. KUMARI GOURAMMA D/O. PARASHURAM BODANNAVAR, AGE 05 YEARS, OCC: NIL, (SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 BEING MINORS, ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1). Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 4. SRI. PAPANNA S/O. DURGAPPA BODENNAVAR, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 5. MUTAVVA W/O PAPPANNA BODENNAVAR AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOTABAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. ANIL S/O. DASHARAT ADAV, AGE MAJOR, OCC: NIL, AT. POST ARJUNI, DESAI GALLI, TQ. KAGAL, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416235. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADV. FOR SRI. H. D. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY R1; SRI. S. P. PATIL, ADV. FOR R6) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.888/2015 ON THE FILE OF X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 04.06.2018 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN MFA CROB NO.100117 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDRAWWA W/O. PARASHURAM BODANNAVAR, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUMAR MANIKANT S/O. PARASHURAM BODANNAVAR, AGE 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. KUMARI GOURAMMA D/O. PARASHURAM BODANNAVAR, AGE 6 YEARS, OCC: NIL, SINCE THE CROSS OBJECTORS NO.2 & 3 BEING MINORS, ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 4. SRI. PAPANNA S/O. DURGAPPA BODANNAVAR, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE. 5. MUTAVVA W/O. PAPANNA BODANNAVAR, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL R/O. KOTABAGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADV. FOR SRI. H. D. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRANCH OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.413, AURORA TOWERS, M. G. ROAD, WEST WING, CAMP, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI. 2. ANIL S/O. DASHARAT ADAV, AGE MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O. AT/POST: ARJUNI, DESAI GALLI, TQ: KAGAL, DIST: KOLHAPUR-416235. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGANAGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.103397/2018 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2018 IN MVC NO.888/2015 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER OF ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.12,94,000/- BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO RS.15,00,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST P.A. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL AND CROB PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. MFA No.103397 of 2018 and MFA Crob.No.100117 of 2019 arise out of the judgment and award dated 04.06.2018 passed in MVC No.888 of 2015 on the file of X Addl. District Judge and Member, MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. MFA No.103397 of 2018 is filed by the insurance company and MFA Crob.No.100117 of 2019 is filed by the claimants. Both the matters are taken up together for disposal. 3. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that claimant Nos.1 to 5 are wife, children and parents of deceased Parushram who met with an accident on 02.02.2015 at 8:30 a.m. while going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 23/Y-3652, due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.MH-12/BP-3769, near Kotabagi village on Hukkeri-Ghataprabha tar road. As a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 result of the accident, said Parushram sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries, on 08.02.2015 around 10:45 a.m. It is further the contention of the claimants that deceased Parushram was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. He was agriculture coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and maintaining his entire family. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.55,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said car and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car. Both denied all the petition averments. It is the further contended by the insurer that driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. He was holding a Learner's Licence and he was not accompanied by any instructor or any person who was holding driving licence, to drive the said class of vehicle and thereby owner has violated terms and conditions of policy of insurance and hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 in the present petition. Rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said class of vehicle. Liability of respondent/insurer is restricted to the terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the car. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties the Tribunal has framed necessary issues. 7. Claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW1 and marked 8 documents as per Exs.P1 to P8. Respondents examined in all two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 4 documents as per Exs.R1 to R4. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating material available on record held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and death was caused due to the said accident. Claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Parushram and entitled to claim compensation. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month; his age as 26 years; applied - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 multiplier 17; deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal expenses and calculated compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the conventional heads and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,94,000/-. The Tribunal has also held that respondent No.2 failed to prove that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and hence the Tribunal directed both respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, insurance company filed MFA No.103397 of 2018. Similarly claimants have also filed MFA Crob.No.100117 of 2019 for enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of learned advocate appearing for both the sides. 10. Advocate for the appellant/insurer submits that Tribunal has awarded higher amount of compensation to the claimants and the main argument of the counsel for the appellant is that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 class of vehicle, he was holding a Learner’s Licence and there is no evidence to prove that at the time of accident either instructor or any person who was having knowledge of driving or holding of licence to drive LMV, was sitting beside the driver of the said vehicle to instruct him. Therefore owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of policy of insurance and hence respondent No.2 insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 11. It is the repeated contention of the insurer that even the respondent No.2 examined two witnesses to prove the said contention. In spite of that Tribunal did not accept the said contention and held that both respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. The said finding is erroneous since there is violation of fundamental conditions of policy of insurance. Respondent No.2 insurer is not liable to pay compensation. With these reasons prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and absolve liability of respondent No.2 from paying compensation to the claimants. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 12. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contends that Tribunal has assessed income of Rs.8,000/- per month though claimants have contended that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He further stated that as per the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 future prospects was taken into consideration. If the age of the deceased who died in an accident is less than 40 years, then 40% of his income has to be added towards future prospects. However in this case Tribunal erroneously held that since deceased had no fixed income and hence he is not entitled for future prospects. It is also contended that according to the said judgment and also in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs.Nanu Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. However Tribunal has not awarded the said amount of compensation to the claimants. Since the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 head is also on lower side therefore prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that driver of the car was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The trial Court records show that driving licence of the driver of the car was produced. However inadvertently it was not marked. It is a public record and it shows that driver of the vehicle was holding non-transport licence from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2023 and for transport vehicle it was given from 27.02.2015 to 26.02.2018. The said endorsement indicates that as on the date of accident i.e., on 02.02.2015 he was holding licence to drive LMV (NT). He further submits that in view of the law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, it is sufficient if the driver is holding licence to drive LMV and there is no need that an endorsement is required from the concerned RTO that he was having licence to drive light motor vehicle (non transport). In view of the said reasons - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 defence of respondent No.2 that driver of the offending car was not holding valid and effective driving licence does not survive. With these reasons prayed to allow MFA Cross Objection and dismiss the appeal filed by the respondent No.2/insurer. 14. From the contentions of the parties, following questions arise for determination: i. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation? ii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle at the time of accident? 15. Both the questions are answered in the affirmative for the following reasons. 16. Fact of the accident and death of Parushram due to accident are not in dispute. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence of both the parties, rightly came to conclusion that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The said - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 finding is not seriously challenged by respondent No.2/insuer in the appeal and hence there is no need to re-consider the same. 17. It is the contention of the claimants that Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. Contention of the claimants that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month admittedly except the self serving statement of PW1 there are no evidence on record to show that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore the Tribunal has assessed notional income of the claimants based on the available records and assessed income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. Even if the Court considers notional income chart prepared by KSLSA while settling the dispute in the Lok Adalat income of the victim of an accident of the year 2015 is taken as Rs.8,000/- per month and the same was applied by the Tribunal while assessing compensation in the present case. There is no error committed by the Tribunal in doing so. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 18. The Tribunal denied to add future prospects, on the ground that deceased had no fixed salary. The Tribunal has noted the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi referred supra but did not follow the law laid down by the said judgment. In the said case it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that even if the deceased or victims of the accident have no fixed income, then also future prospects has to be considered on the basis of his age. According to the guidelines of the said judgment, if a victim of the accident is aged below 40 years, then future prospects has to be added to an extent of 40% towards future prospects. Accordingly 40% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects, since deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has taken 1/4th income of the deceased towards personal expenses and applied multiplied 17. There is no dispute in this regard and the same can be applied for assessment of compensation. On the basis of the said figure, the amount of compensation shall be assessed under the head of loss of dependency. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 19. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Considering the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., (referred supra) Rs.40,000/- each shall be awarded to the claimants under the head of loss of consortium. In this case claimants are none other than wife, children and parents of the deceased, who are affected by the death of Parushram. Therefore they are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium and each are entitled for Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly compensation has to be re- calculated. The Tribunal has awarded fixed sum towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and it is not required to be enhanced. 20. For the aforesaid discussions, following amount of compensation is awarded under different heads: i. Loss of dependency :Rs.17,13,600.00 ii. Loss of consortium :Rs. 2,00,000.00 iii. Loss of estate :Rs. 15,000.00 iv. Funeral expenses :Rs. 15,000.00 Total :Rs.19,43,600.00 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 21. The claimants are entitled for Rs.19,43,600/- as against Rs.12,94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled for enhancement of Rs.6,49,600/-, rounded off to Rs.6,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 22. The next point of insurer is that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. In support of the said contention, it examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2. 23. It appears respondent No.1 has produced letter of RTO, Kolhapur. It is not marked. It is dated 09.04.2015 and it shows that Mr.Anil Dasharath Adav, r/o Arjuni Desai Galli, taluk Kagal and District Kolhapur was holding Learner’s Licence No.11921/15 to drive LMV (transport) and it was valid for the period 13.01.2015 to 12.07.2015. On the basis of the Learner's Licence, he has obtained LMV (Transport) driving licence No.MH09200057417 on 31.07.2015. It was valid from 27.02.2015 to 26.02.2018. Respondent No.1 has produced copy of the driving licence issued by the RTO, Kolhapur and the said document is also - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 not marked. The said document shows that driver of the car was holding LMV (non-transport) licence to drive LMV from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2030. He was holding licence to drive transport vehicle from 27.02.2015 to 26.02.2018. It is the certified copy of licence issued by the public records issued by competent authority. 24. Respondent No.2 has also tried to contend that rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. To that effect it produced at Ex.R3 i.e., the charge sheet and it was laid against deceased Parushram. It also indicates that the said Parushram had no valid and effective driving licence to drive two wheeler i.e., motorcycle. Respondents have not examined driver of the car or any other eye-witnesses to the accident to show that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of two wheeler by the deceased. Merely not holding driving licence do not lead to inference that he has no knowledge of riding the motorcycle. Under the circumstances respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 25. For the above said discussions, question Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER 26. MFA No.103397 of 2018 is dismissed. 27. MFA Crob.No.100117 of 2019 is allowed in part. 28. The impugned judgment and award dated 04.06.2018 passed in MVC No.888 of 2015 on the file of X Addl. District Judge and Member, MACT, Belagavi is modified. 29. Claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation on the enhanced amount of compensation. 30. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. 31. Respondent No.2 being insurer is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation with interest within six weeks from the date of passing of the award. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5422 MFA No. 103397 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100117 of 2019 32. Apportionment, deposit and release of the compensation amount are in accordance with the orders passed by the Tribunal. 33. The amount in deposit if any before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. 34. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. 35. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK/CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13