- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103132 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MINAXI W/O. SADANANDA BELAMKAR, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 2. RAGAVENDRA S/O. SADANAND BELAMKAR, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: BANK EMPLOY. 3. SUMAN D/O. SADANAND BELAMKAR, AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 4. VINAYAK S/O. SADANAND BELAMKAR, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. DHARWAD, NOW AT HANGAL-581104. TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHRAFKHAN S/O. A. KHAN KITTUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. JEENAGAR GALLI, MAGALWARPET, AT: TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.24/2015 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HANGAL, DATED 02.01.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 02.01.2018 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge & AMACT, Hangal in M.V.C. No. 24/2015 praying for enhancement of compensation as well as directing the respondent No.2-insurer to pay compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2014 around 11.45 A.M., one Sadanand (deceased), husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 to 4, was going - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 by walk by the side of Tadakod Oni in Dharwad. He met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-31-J-8500 by its rider as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, on the same day he succumbed to the injuries. It is further contention of the claimants that deceased was aged 52 years, earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a Pigmi Agent and maintaining the family. Due to his sudden death, the family has been suffering. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.18 lakhs. 3. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending motorcycle denied the content of the claim petition and prayed for dismissing the claim petition. Respondent No.2-insurer also denied the entire averments made in the petition. It is further stated that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy and insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the rider. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 4. From the rival contentions of the parties the Tribunal framed necessary issues. Claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. The respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and 2 and marked one document as Ex.R.1. 5. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. It further held that age of the deceased was 52 years, assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month, deducted 1/4th of the same towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 11 and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. It also awarded compensation under other heads. Total compensation of Rs.6,29,200/- was awarded. The Tribunal further held that rider of the motorcycle was a minor and had no valid and effective driving licence. Therefore absolved the liability of respondent No.2 from paying the compensation and held that the owner of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 motorcycle to pay compensation with interest at 7% p.a. The claimants have filed this appeal contending inadequacy of quantum of compensation so also fastening liability on the respondent No.2 to pay compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner. 6. Heard arguments of learned Advocate for claimants- appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. On perusal of the records it would emerge that the Tribunal has held that Sadanand died due to the accident in question. It is not in dispute since the respondents have not challenged the said finding. The Tribunal assessed income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month, in the absence of any proof of income. It appears to be on lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of a victim of an accident of the year 2014 could be assessed as Rs.7,500/- per month. Accordingly income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,500/- per month. In view of the ratio of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% future prospects is added to the notional income of the deceased, since the age of the deceased was 52 years. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the claimant No.2 is serving in the Bank and he was not dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. Therefore he cannot be considered as a dependent. Claimants No. 1, 3 and 4 may be considered as dependents and 1/3 of his income may be deducted towards personal expenses instead of ¼ as taken by the Tribunal. In that event, the deduction shall not be 1/4 but it shall be 1/3. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender and others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the claimants are majors and having their own source of income they are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. He further submits that the Hon’ble - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2323/2025 in the case of Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., following the judgment in Birender (stated supra), held that major sons and daughters are also entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments the claimant No.2 can be considered as a dependent on the earnings of the deceased. 10. It is pertinent to note that all the claimants are residing together. If the deceased was also contributing his earnings for the maintenance of the family, then the family would be utilizing the earnings of the deceased. Dependency does not mean that they should be completely dependent on the income of the deceased. Even if the deceased contributes for the expenses of the entire family, that could also be considered, as held in the aforesaid judgments. In view of the same, contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not tenable. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 11. There are four dependents. Therefore the deduction shall be taken at 1/4 as adopted by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that multiplier applicable would be 11. Thus the compensation for which claimants are entitled towards loss of dependency would be Rs.8,16,750/- i.e., (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.750/- x 12 x 11 x ¼). 12. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. 13. In addition to the above, the claimants are also entitled for compensation towards medical expenses which is already awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the claimants are entitled for following compensation: 1. Loss of dependency 8,16,750.00 2. Loss of consortium 1,60,000.00 3. Loss of estate 15,000.00 4. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 5. Medical expenses 54,400.00 Total 10,61,150.00 Award of Tribunal 6,29,400.00 Enhancement 4,31,750.00 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that interest on the compensation shall be awarded at the rate of 6% p.a. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7% p.a. exercising its discretion. Therefore there is no need to interfere in the said finding. However, on the enhanced amount of compensation the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that rider of the motorcycle was a minor and had no valid and effective driving licence. Therefore as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yallavva and another reported in AIR ONLINE 2020 KAR 986, the insurer is liable to pay compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that admittedly the rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident was a minor aged about 17½ years and was not - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 entitled for obtaining licence until he completes age of 18 years. Therefore, there is fundamental breach of conditions of the policy and hence the Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay compensation and recover it from the owner. He relied on the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bibi Nafisa in M.F.A. No. 7683/2014 c/w M.F.A. Cross Objection No. 54/2020. The Co-ordinate Bench though referred the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Yallavva stated supra, but distinguished the facts in both cases. It is held that minor is legally not entitled for a licence and hence no chance of obtaining licence. But in case of major person, who is eligible to obtain licence failed to obtain the same. Hence both form different class. Hence, if minor was riding/ driving the vehicle, then insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. With due respect to the said view, the Full Bench of this Court has not made any - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 such classifications but in Yallavva’s case referred supra other contingencies were also considered. 17. In the present case, the rider of the motorcycle was aged more than 17 years but less than 18 years. Whether he was a minor or a major but the status of both are one and the same that they do not have driving licence and were driving the vehicle without valid driving licence. That amounts to violation of terms and conditions of policy by the owner of the vehicle. Hence owner is liable to pay compensation. The vehicle is covered by the policy of insurance. Then the insurer is liable to pay the amount to third parties and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Driving of a vehicle without valid licence either by major or minor person is violation of law and wrong doer is liable for punishment. In case of minor, some time his guardian/ owner of the vehicle may be liable for punishment for giving vehicle to a minor to drive. But for contractual liability between insurer and insured the liability of insured is the same in both the case. Moreover - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 in a similar circumstance, Full Bench of this Court in the case of Yallavva held that insurer is liable to pay compensation and it may recover it from owner of the vehicle and it is binding precedent. Hence the said law is followed in this case and hold that insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle for committing breach of the conditions of the policy. 18. For the aforesaid discussions, the following orders are passed. ORDER (1) Appeal is allowed in part. (2) Judgment and award dated 02.01.2018 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge & AMACT, Hangal in M.V.C. No. 24/2015 is modified. (3) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,31,750/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in addition to amount awarded by the Tribunal. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5711 MFA No. 103132 of 2018 Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the entire compensation amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of award. It is at liberty to recover the entire compensation amount from the owner-respondent No.1 in an appropriate proceedings. Apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. However, the appellants are at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for modification of the same since the matter is pending for the last ten years. Send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34