- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7868 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NARAYANA KUTTY S/O T.P.RAGHAVA PISHARODY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SMT. K.P. RAMADEVI W/O NARAYANA KUTTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT "PRASADAM", PAMBOR, KUTTUR POST, TRISSUR, PIN-680 013. NOW CAMPING AT BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,THE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.3, 24, IST FLOOR, CLASSIC BUILDING, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. 2. SIMANTA PAL, NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, 25TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 BANGALORE-560 053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 07.08.2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.8.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.5135/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 26.08.2014 passed by the XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, in MVC No.5135/2007 (for short 'the Tribunal), seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.05.2007 at around 6:20 a.m., the deceased, Sreeraj N, met with a fatal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 accident on Varthur Main Road, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of a Tata Indica car bearing registration No. KA-01-B-5747 by its driver. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them at the spot. It is further case of the claimant that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident and was employed as a System Coordinator at Gate (India) Pvt. Ltd., and earning Rs.10,602/- per month. The claimants were dependent on his income. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending car. 5. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant and further denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for consideration. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 7. The claimants In support of their case, examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and produced documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P20. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but marked one document as Exhibit R1. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence on record, concluded that the death of Sreeraj N occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 25 years and his monthly income as Rs.9,600/-, and applied a multiplier of '13' based on the age of the youngest parent. The following compensation was awarded: Sl.No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 7,48,800 2. Funeral and transportation 25,000 3. Loss of lover and affection 20,000 4. Loss of estate 20,000 Total 8,13,800 9. The Tribunal also held that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license and was charge-sheeted for the same. Therefore, the Tribunal exonerated Respondent No.1 (the insurer) from its - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 liability and directed Respondent No.2 (the owner of the vehicle) to pay the compensation of Rs.8,13,800/-. 10. Aggrieved by the exoneration of Respondent No.1 from liability to indemnify the owner and the award of compensation, the claimants preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material placed on record. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was working as a System Co-ordinator at Great (India) Pvt. Ltd., and his salary certificate has been placed on record. Exhibit P19, the pay slip, indicates that he was earning Rs.11,019/- per month. The Tribunal, however, erroneously deducted all allowances to which he was entitled. He further contended that, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,1 and 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2 the applicable multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased, not on the age of the youngest surviving parent. In this case, the Tribunal wrongly applied a multiplier of '13' based on the age of the deceased's youngest parent. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal accepted the charge sheet’s allegation that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, and even on such basis, wrongly held that the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation. The insurer made no effort to prove that the driver lacked a valid and effective driving licence. Even assuming the driver was unlicensed, under settled legal principles, the insurer remains liable to pay compensation to third parties and may subsequently recover the amount from the vehicle owner. With these reasons, prayed to enhance the compensation and direct Respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. 13. The learned counsel for the insurer vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellant. He contended that the Tribunal has properly assessed the income and has 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 awarded appropriate compensation based on the documents produced by the claimant. He further submitted that the charge sheet clearly stated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The appellants have relied on this charge sheet to prove the accident. Therefore, they cannot now dispute the fact stated in the same document that the driver was unlicensed. Since the charge sheet confirms the driver’s lack of a valid licence, the burden to prove otherwise does not lie with the respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer from its liability, and its findings do not warrant interference by this Court. 14. The following point emerges for my determination: i. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation? ii. Whether the finding of the Tribunal from exonerating respondent No.1 from its liability to pay the compensation is justifiable? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 15. POINT No.1:- The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is sustainable. As per Exhibit P19, for the month of April 2007 (one month prior to the accident), the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.11,019/-, which included his basic pay and allowances. Out of the total deductions of Rs.738/-, Rs.186/- was towards professional tax and income tax. There were no other allowances in that month. Based on this, and corroborated by the testimony of PW-2, the Tribunal ought to have considered the salary as Rs.11,019/- and deducted the tax of Rs.186/-, resulting in a net income of Rs.10,833/-. Since the deceased had a permanent job with a fixed salary, future prospects must be added as per the case of Pranay Sethi, which mandates a 50% addition to the income. The Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier based on the age of the deceased’s parents. As per the judgments in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC3 and National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors4, the correct multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased, which in this case was 25 years— 3 AIR 2009 SC 3104 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 therefore, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. It is undisputed fact that the deceased was unmarried. Hence, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. On the basis of said factors, the loss of dependency is recalculated as follows: Similarly, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Nanuram and Ors, compensation under conventional heads are allowed. 16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency (10,833+50% x 12x18x50% ) 17,55,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of consortium 80,000 Total Rs.18,65,000/- Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.8,13,800/- Enhancement 10,51,200/- The claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until its realization. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 17. As per the charge sheet, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The Investigating Officer, after conducting a thorough investigation, submitted the charge sheet. The appellants themselves are relying on the said charge sheet to establish the occurrence of the accident. Under these circumstances, unless the appellants rebut the contents of the charge sheet by producing or securing a copy of the driver's licence, it is difficult to accept their contention that the burden lies on the respondent to prove the absence of a valid driving licence. Moreover, it is not the specific or assertive case of Respondent No.1 (the insurer) that the driver lacked a valid driving licence. On the contrary, the documents produced by the claimants themselves establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence. 18. It is not in dispute that the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident. The insurance policy has produced and marked as Ex.R1. The absence of a valid driving licence by the driver does not constitute a fundamental breach of the policy conditions. Therefore, the Insurance Company is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 liable to pay the compensation amount and is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 19. There are catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue, and there is no need to elaborate on them in this case. 20. For the aforesaid discussion, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative and point No.2 in the Negative. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 26.08.2014 passed by the XIX Additional Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-17) in MVC.No.5135/2007 is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,51,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as against Rs.8,13,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22281 MFA No. 7868 of 2014 iv. Respondent Nos.1 is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of this award and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. v. Apportionment, release and deposit remains intact. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5