- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2643 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED T P HUB, BESIDE MUSLIM ORPHANAGE HOSTEL SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX NO.44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B S UMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAYALAKSHMI P W/O LATE MANJUNATHA B S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SRI JAYANTH KUMAR M S/O LATE MANJUNATHA B S AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. SRI YESHWANTH KUMAR M S/O LATE MANJUNATHA B S AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.44, 3RD MAIN 3RD CROSS, NEAR GANESH BHANDAR JANATHANAGAR, THONACHIKOPPAL MYSURU-570 009 4. SRI PRADEEPAN T S/O SMT PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT KAITACHAL Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 MANGATTIDAM POST KUTTUPARAMA KANNUR DISTRICT KERALA-670 643 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.921/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 13,34,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 calling in question the judgment and award dated 7.11.2016 passed in MVC No.921/2014 by the Court of the Judge, Principal Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru2. The Tribunal, vide the judgment and award dated 7.11.2016 has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `13,34,800/- together with interest at 6% p.a., and ordered that the respondents are 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. The Tribunal directed respondent No.2 – insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri B.S.Umesh for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel Sri Shivanand for learned counsel Sri P.Nataraju, for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability to pay the compensation awarded on the insurer of the vehicle not noticing the fact that the driving licence produced with respect to the driver of the insured vehicle was a fake one. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants contends that even if the insurer succeeds in proving that the driving licence was fake, it is liable to pay the compensation awarded and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 the case of Pappu Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba3. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the insurer specifically responding to the contention put forth on behalf of the claimants seeking for enhancement of the quantum of compensation contends that the claimants not having preferred an independent appeal or a cross objection, in the appeal filed by the insurer, it is not open for the claimants to seek for enhancement of the compensation. 6. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the insurer is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii. Whether it is open for the claimants to seek for enhancement of the compensation in the appeal filed by the insurer? 3 (2018) 3 SCC 208 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 iii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? Re. question No.(i): 7. The insurer, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal had filed statement of objections, whereunder it has specifically denied that the driver of the insured vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle on the date of the accident. The owner of the vehicle who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal entered appearance through a counsel. However, no statement of objections have been filed. The representative of the insurer examined himself as RW.1 and it is deposed that as per the police records, the name of the accused is one Ameer O.K, who was the holder of the driving licence bearing No.10/433/2011 issued by the Regional Transport Office, Malappuram. It has further deposed that the certified copy of driving licence No.10/433/2011, which has been marked as Ex.R2 discloses that the said driving licence is issued to one Mr.Sharafudeen O.K. Hence, it is deposed that the driving - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 licence produced by the driver of the insured vehicle before the police authorities is a forged one. 8. It is forthcoming that the holder of Ex.R2 is the father of the driver of the insured vehicle as named in the police records. The Tribunal, considering the said material on record has held that the insurer not having produced a certified copy of the fake driving licence produced before the police authorities and also that the contention that the driving licence was a fake one not having been specifically averred in the statement of objections, rejected the contention of the insurer seeking to be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 9. It is relevant to note here that the insurer has taken a specific contention in the statement of objections that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. In the testimony of RW.1, it is clearly deposed that the driving licence extract (Ex.R2) does not pertain to the driver of the insured vehicle, but stands in the name of the father. Hence, it cannot be said that the insurer has not demonstrated that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 However, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu3 , regarding payment of compensation when the driver of a vehicle did not hold a driving licence, directed that the insurer shall pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the same is required to be applied in the present case also. 10. In view of the discussion made above, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative holding that the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation awarded and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Re. question No.(ii): 11. This Court in the case of M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd., v. B.M.Satish & Ors.,4 considered a similar question as to whether in an appeal filed by the insurer, in the absence of an independent appeal or a cross objection filed by the claimants, and whether the submissions for enhancement of the compensation could be accepted. In the said case, this Court considering various other judgments has 4 Judgment dated 8.7.2025 passed in MFA No.7857/2017 c/w MFA No.2072/2018 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 held that even in the absence of an independent appeal or a cross objection, in an appeal filed by the insurer, the Court is required to award just compensation and to the said extent, the contentions put forth by the claimants in that regard are required to be considered. 12. Hence, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re. question No.(iii): 13. The age of the deceased was 45 years as on the date of the accident i.e., 12.8.2014. The multiplier of ‘14’ adopted by the Tribunal is just and proper. 14. The deceased was stated to be in the business of supply of Agarbatti and was earning `20,000/- p.m. However, no material is produced demonstrating the said income. The Tribunal assessed the notional income at `8,000/- p.m. However, having regard to the date of the accident, the notional income of the deceased is re-assessed as `8,500/- p.m. 15. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 Ltd v. Pranay Sethi5, 25% is required to be added towards future prospects to the income as re-assessed by this Court and 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses since there were three dependents i.e., wife and two children of the deceased. Hence, the loss of dependency is re-assessed as (`8,500/- + 25% - 1/3x12x14) `11,90,000/- as against `11,64,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Loss of consortium is required to be awarded to claimant Nos.1 to 3 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram Alias Chubru Ram6 and accordingly, `40,000/- each together with an escalation of 20% is to be awarded towards the same. Hence, loss of consortium is re- assessed as (`48,000/-x3) `1,44,000/- as against `50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. The compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate also has to be awarded in terms of the aforesaid judgment in a sum of `15,000/- each together with escalation at 20% and accordingly, a sum of `18,000/- each is awarded towards the same. 5 (2017)16 SCC 680 6 “(2018)18 SCC 130” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 18. In view of the compensation awarded under conventional heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate, transportation, funeral expenses and loss of life expectancy, awarded by the Tribunal are set aside/modified. 19. Taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7% p.a. 20. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation re-assessed is as follows: Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court (`) 1 Loss of dependency 1164800.00 1190000.00 2 Loss of consortium 50000.00 144000.00 3 Love and affection 40000.00 0.00 4 Transportation and funeral expenses 25000.00 0.00 5 Funeral expenses 0.00 18000.00 6 Loss of life expectancy 25000.00 0.00 7 Loss of estate 30000.00 18000.00 Total 1334800.00 1370000.00 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 21. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of (`13,69,944/- - `13,34,800/-) = `35,200/-. 22. Hence, question No.(iii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 23. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 7.11.2016 passed in MVC No.921/2014 by the Court of the Judge, Principal Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru, is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of `13,70,000/- together with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till date of payment. iii) The insurer – (appellant herein/respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) shall pay the compensation awarded together with accrued interest with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.4 herein/respondent No.1 before the Tribunal); iv) In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; v) The amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeal together with records be - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25655 MFA No. 2643 of 2017 transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal; vi) Respondent No.2 – insurer shall deposit the remaining compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks; vii) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33