- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 105492 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, YELAMANCHALI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE,DIST. VIJAYANGARA, REP. BY THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA ALIAS MAINAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S SRI. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA ALIAS MAINAYYA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 25TH WARD, JAMBUNATH ROAD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HOSAPETE, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201 2. SRI. HULAGAPPA S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ MAINAYYA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL, Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 R/O: 25TH WARD, JAMBUNATH ROAD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HOSAPETE, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201 3. SMT. C. VENNELLA W/O. P. SHIVA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA ALIAS MAINAYYA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. H. NO.M13, 30TH WARD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, HES COLONY, TB DAM, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583201 4. KASTURI D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ MAINAYYA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 25TH WARD, JAMBUNATH ROAD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HOSAPETE, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201 5. SRI. KASIMSAB J. GUDAGEE S/O. JANDISAB, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER, R/O: H. N. NO.148, MARUTI NAGAR, LAKKUNDI, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-580024 (OWNER CUM RIDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-26/TU-2766) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATISH. M.S,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5.) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.213/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CUM MEMBER, MACT-VII, HOSAPETE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.18,01,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant-Insurance Company arrayed as respondent no.2 in judgment and award dated 16.8.2023 in MVC No.213/2021 on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-Cum-Member, MACT-VII, Hospete [for short ‘Tribunal’] has questioned the quantum of compensation and fastening liability on it, has preferred this appeal. Brief facts leading upto this appeal are as under: 2. That the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of death of Tagumani @ Tangamani in a motor vehicle accident dated 18.3.2018 at 12.00 p.m. when he was traveling in an auto rickshaw and when the auto rickshaw stopped by the side of the road near Sassya Dhama, Munirabad Dam, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-26/TU-7566 ridden by its - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 rider from Hospete side on National Highway No.50 in high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed to Tagumani @ Tangamani and because of this accident he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He became unconscious. The injured was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Munirabad where he succumbed to the injuries. With regard to the said accident, a crime was registered in Crime No.50/2018 in Munirabad Police Station. The said vehicle was driven by respondent no.1 at the time of accident. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was a coolie earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He used to contribute his entire income towards maintenance of his family and because of sudden death of deceased, the claimants have lost love and affection and earning member of the family. Thus, it is prayed to allow the claim petition. The claimant died during the pendency of the petition and his LRs are brought on record in the same of 1(a) to 1(d). It is they prosecuted the claim petition. 3. Before the Tribunal, despite service of notice, respondent no.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 Respondent no.2 appeared and filed objections denying the entire assertions made by the claimants with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased to claim the compensation. The serious objection of the respondent no.2- Insurance Company is that rider of the motor bike was not possessing effective driving licence, therefore, there is violation of policy conditions. Respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation much less claimed in the petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, learned Tribunal framed four issues. Before the Tribunal, the original claimant no.1 was examined as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8, closed claimants evidence. 5. The official of the respondent no.2 was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R4 closed respondent’s evidence. 6. The learned Tribunal on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, held that, the said - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent riding of the motor bike and hence, came to the conclusion that claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,01,600/- under all relevant heads as under: 7. While fixing the liability, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability on respondent no.2 to pay the compensation to the claimants and to recover the same from respondent no.1 as he has violated the policy conditions. Now, the insurer is before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation as well as liability fastened on it. Sl.No. Particulars Amount 1. Income Rs.11,750/-p.m. 2. Deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased. Rs.11,750/- plus Rs.4,700/= 16,450/- 50% of Rs.16,450/- means Rs.8,225/- 3. Total income per year Rs.8,225/- X 12= 98,700/- 4. Multiplier 18 5. Loss of estate. Rs.8,225/- X 12X 18= Rs.17,76,600=00 6. Funeral expenses. Rs.25,000=00 TOTAL Rs.18,01,600=00 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer in all fairness submits that, though the insurer admits the accident but, rider of motor bike at the relevant time was not holding the effective driving licence and in view of the provisions of Sec.3 read with Section 181 of MV Act, the rider or driver of the vehicles have to hold the effective driving licence and if not it amounts to violation of policy conditions. He would further submit that on receipt of the information regarding the accident, the insurer issued the lawyer’s notice to respondent no.1 calling upon him to produce driving licence. Despite that respondent no.1 has not produced the driving licence. He would submit that Ex.R1 is the lawyers notice Ex.R1 and R2 are notice and receipt. He would submit, receipt of the said lawyer’s notice is not denied by respondent no.1. Ex.R3 policy mandates that rider of the motor bike must possess the driving license, if not, it would be violation of the policy conditions. He would submit that Ex.R3 mandates the same. He would submit the charge sheet filed against the rider of motor bike i.e., Respondent no.1 clearly shows he was not holding the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 effective driving license when the accident took place. He would further submit that, quantum of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is also on the higher side and the Tribunal has committed factual and legal error in awarding the compensation by holding monthly income at Rs.11,750/-. Even proper multiplier is not applied. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the petition by allowing the appeal. 9. To this submission, Sri Satish M. S., learned counsel for claimants justifies the findings of the Tribunal so also would submit that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation awarded, fastening liability on the Insurer with a direction to pay and recover. He prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the side and perused the record. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the learned Tribunal has committed any error in awarding the compensation and fastening the liability on the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 insurer to deposit the compensation with a direction to pay and recover?” Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: 11. So far as accident that took place on 18.3.2018 at 5.30 p.m. near Sasyadhama is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that respondent no.1 was rider of offending motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-26/TU-7566. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Tagumani died in the accident because of accidental injuries. It is also not in dispute that, in respect of offending vehicle, respondent no.2 had issued the policy as per Ex.R3. Now the question that is to be decided in this appeal is whether respondent no.1 had effective driving licence to ride the motor bike at the time of accident. Evidently, the claimants are the third parties. They are not aware about the possessing of driving licence by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 had remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer, a notice was issued to respondent no.1 calling upon him to produce the driving licence as per - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 Ex.R1 but, he has not produced the same. The Insurer also relies upon the true copy of charge sheet wherein respondent no.1 was charge sheeted not only under Section 279 and 304 of IPC but also under Sec.5 read with Sec.181 of MV Act as it was found by IO that, Respondent no.1 was not holding effective and valid driving licence as on the date of accident. So this it goes to establish that, this respondent no.1 has violated the policy conditions issued by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is violation of policy conditions and categorically held that as on the date of accident, policy was in force and because of violation of policy conditions claimants being third parties shall not be put to any hardship therefore, it directed, the insurer to deposit the compensation and then recover the same from respondent no.1 by executing the award. 12. We do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability. The Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur by its - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 Divisional Manager V/s. Yellavva and another1, have categorically held that in a case of present nature, as the claimants are third parties, the Insurance Company has to deposit the compensation amount and then recover the same from respondent no.1- owner. Therefore, in view of the judgment stated supra, the Tribunal is right in passing the said award. 13. So far as quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has categorically held that deceased was a coolie by occupation and has assessed his income at the rate of Rs.11,750/- per month as per the guidelines issued by the KSLSA to settle the claim petitions in the Lok Adalath in the absence of proof of income as the accident has took place in the year 2018. The learned Tribunal has considered the addition for future prospects at 40% which comes to Rs.16,450 (Rs.11,750 + Rs.4700). To that, deduction of 50% of the income towards his personal expenses as per the judgment in Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi transport 1 ILR 2020 KAR 2239 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 corporation and Another2 as he was a bachelor Rs.8,225/. Deceased was aged 18 years at the time of accident. Rightly the Tribunal has applied multiplier '18'. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation towards loss of dependency i.e., Rs.8,225 x 12 months x 18 = Rs.17,76,600/-. 14. The Tribunal has considered funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/- and with regard to 'Loss of estate', the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. This finding is not challenged by the claimants. However, Tribunal has not considered about the 'loss of estate' and also escalation of awarding compensation towards 'loss of estate' and funeral expenses as the accident has taken place in the year 2018. In view of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Pranay Sethi3, claimants are entitled for compensation for 'loss of estate' and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each with 10% escalation. As it is benevolent social legislation, this Court can very well exercise its 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 discretion and award just compensation as per the law laid down by Pranay Sethi [supra] to award compensation under conventional heads in a case of present nature. Therefore, claimants are held entitled for compensation at Rs.16,500/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. As there are three claimants, they are entitled for consortium at Rs.40,000/- each with escalation at 10% which comes to Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 3). Sl.No. HEADS AMOUNT In Rs. 1. Towards loss of dependency 17,76,600/- 2. Towards loss of estate 16,500/- 3. Towards funeral Expenses 16,500/- 4. Loss of Consortium 1,32,000/- TOTAL Rs.19,41,600/- 15. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 19,41,600/- as against Rs.18,01,600/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, thereby there is enhancement in compensation by Rs.1,40,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellant-Insurer - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 (Respondent No.2) to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy and recover the same from respondent no.1 by executing the award. Statutory deposit is transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. Respondent-claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,41,600/- as against Rs.18,01,600/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, thereby there is enhancement of compensation by Rs.1,40,000/- payable to respondent- claimants. (ii) Judgment and award dated 16.08.2023 passed in MVC No.213/2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC- Cum-Member, MACT-VII, Hospete, is modified. (iii) Appellant-Insurer to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1759-DB MFA No. 105492 of 2023 recover the same from respondent no.1 by executing the award. (iv) Statutory deposit is transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. (v) There shall be modified award in the above terms. (vi) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK/Ct-vg./LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30