- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201719 OF 2023 (MV-) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202887 OF 2022 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.201719/2023: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BAGDAL THANDA, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-584 101. 2. SHMARANA D/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 16 YEARS, MINOR, 3. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 15 YEARS, MINOR, 4. PRADEEP S/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 12 YEARS, MINOR, 5. VIKRAM S/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 9 YEARS, MINOR, A2 TO A5 ARE MINORS U/G OF THEIR MOTHER Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 LAXMIBAI APPELLANT NO.1, R/O BAGDAL THANDA, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-584 101. 6. SMT. ZAJABAI W/O LATE GOPAL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BAGDAL THANDA, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-584 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AMAR S/O NARASAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 2-266, VILLAGE NAGORA, DIST. BIDAR-584 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BIDAR-584 101. 3. SMT. ANITA MASUTE W/O KUNTHINATH MASUTE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHANTIDEVI “E” WARD MASUTE MALA, GANDHI NAGAR ROAD, KOLHAPUR (M.S.). 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BIDAR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R2 AND R4; V/O DTD. 08.08.2024, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 NO.305/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AND ADDL. MACT AT BIDAR. B) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2022 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.305/2020 BY PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AND ADDL. MACT AT BIDAR AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM Rs.27,34,340/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO Rs.40,00,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. IN MFA NO.202887/2022: BETWEEN: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BIDAR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BIDAR. NOW BOTH THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPP. SANGAM TALKIES, SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI-585 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BAGDAL THANDA, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 226. 2. SHMARANA D/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 15 YEARS, MINOR, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 3. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 14 YEARS, MINOR, 4. PRADEEP S/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 11 YEARS, MINOR, 5. VIKRAM S/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 8 YEARS, MINOR, ALL MINORS U/G OF THEIR MOTHER LAXMIBAI, R/O. BAGDAL THANDA, TQ. BIDAR-585 226. 6. SMT. ZAJABAI W/O LATE GOPAL, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BAGDAL THANDA, TQ. BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR-585 226. 7. AMAR S/O NARASAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 2-266, VILLAGE NAGORA, TQ. BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR-585 403, (OWNER OF CAR BEARING No.KA-36/M-3106). 8. SMT. ANITA MASUTE W/O KUNTHINATH MASUTE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHANTIDEVI ‘E’ WARD, MASUTE MALA, GANDHINAGAR ROAD, KOLHAPUR (M.S.), (OWNER OF ROAD ROLLER NO. NL 08 D 5725)-416 119. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R6 TO R8-SERVED; (R2 TO R5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.305/2020 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AND ADDL. MACT AT BIDAR. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2022 PASSED IN M.V.C. No.305/2020 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AND ADDL. MACT AT BIDAR REDUCING THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. M. NADAF) These appeals being MFA No.201719/2023 and MFA No.202887/2022 are filed calling in question and judgment and award dated 26.07.2022 in MVC No.305/2020, passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., and Additional M.A.C.T, Bidar, on the ground of liability by the appellant – Insurance Company and on the ground of inadequate compensation by the appellant/claimant. 2. The date of incident, involvement of the vehicle and death of Vinod are not in dispute. The only dispute as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 per the Insurance Company is the rider of the motor cycle was not having any valid Driving License, as such, the Tribunal has failed to consider the negligence on his part. As per the claimants/appellants are concerned, the Tribunal has failed to consider the income, as such, the compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. Heard Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA 201719/2023 and Sri J. Augustine, learned counsel appearing for appellant in MFA No.20287/2024. Vide order dated 08.08.2024, notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3 in appeal MFA No.201719/2023 is dispensed with. So far as respondents in MFA No.202887/2022 is concerned, all are served but unrepresented. IN MFA NO.202887/2022 : 4. Sri J. Augustin, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the rider of the motorcycle was not having any valid license to ride the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 motorcycle. As such, he was not entitled to ride the motorcycle. In the absence of driving license, it has to be presumed that he is not having any knowledge of riding the motorcycle and he is the reason for the accident, however, the Tribunal has failed to take note of the same to fasten the negligence on the rider of the vehicle. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and exonerate the Insurance Company from paying the compensation. 5. So far as quantum is concerned, there is no challenge by the appellant - Insurance Company. 6. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in MFA No.201719/2023 with all vehemence submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh and others1 has clearly stated that, ‘mere absence of a license would, by itself, permit the Insurance Company to contend that 1 (2008) 12 SCC 436 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 the rider/driver contributed to the accident. It is for the Insurance Company to prove that the rider/driver, as the case may be, was rash and negligent in driving the particular vehicle and was the cause for the accident’. The Tribunal has properly considered the materials on record and come to a conclusion that, it is the driver of the offending car of the insurer is the cause for the accident and fastened the entire liability on the Insurance Company. 7. So far as compensation is concerned, Sri Babu H. Metagudda with all vehemence submitted that the deceased was working as a Mason under ‘Prakash Construction’, Mumbai and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and he was also sent abroad by the proprietor of the said Prakash construction to carry out the Mason work. To substantiate his claim, he has produced the passport as well as the certificate of salary issued by said Prakash Construction of Mumbai. The Tribunal has failed to consider the same and taken the income at the rate of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 Rs.13,250/-, which is fixed under the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority for the year 2019, however, appropriately added 40% towards Future Prospectus and taken multiplier as ‘15’ and also 1/4th towards personal expenses. However, erred to award appropriate compensation under the head - Filial consumption and 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the Conventional Heads. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation and sought to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, perused both the appeal papers, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows. i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire liability on the insurance company? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit within the expression just compensation. 9. Our answer to the above points for consideration are as follows: Point No.1 – in affirmative Point No.2 - Partly in affirmative. REASONS 10. Point No.1 - As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.201719/2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) at paragraph No.9 clearly observed that, absence of license may not result in contributory negligence. For easy reference, we reproduce paragraph no. 9 of the judgment, which reads as under: “9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal MFA No.202887/2022 requires to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. As such, we find no infirmities in the findings of the Tribunal in fastening the entire liability on the appellant - Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 12. Point No.2 - As far as the compensation is concerned, though the salary certificate produced by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 claimants and also a person who is said to have issued the salary certificate has been examined, in the absence of any further documents as to the salary paid, such as bank statement or master loan, it becomes very hard for this Court to believe the said document. But, the fact remains that the deceased was working in Bombay under Prakash Constructions. In that view of the matter, we feel it appropriate to take the income at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month, which would meet the ends of justice. 13. Having taken the income at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and having considered that the Tribunal has failed to award appropriate compensation under the Filial Consortium as well as 10% escalation as per the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires re- consideration and re-determination. 14. Accordingly, we proceed to re-determine the compensation, which would be as follows. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 Loss Dependency (15,000 + 40% x 12 x 15 x ¾) : Rs. 48,60,000/- Loss of Filial Consortium (40,000 x 6) : Rs. 2,40,000/- Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses : Rs. 30,000/- 20% escalation (completed two terms of three years) (2,70,000 x 20%) : Rs. 54,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 51,84,000/- Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.51,84,000/- against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., at Rs.27,34,340/-. The re-determined compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 15. Accordingly, the points for consideration raised answered in (i) ‘affirmative’ and ‘partly in affirmative’ and we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal filed by the Appellant - Insurance Company in MFA No. 202887/2022 is dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 ii) The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. iii) The appeal in MFA No.201719/2023 is allowed in part. iv) The judgment and award dated 26.07.2022 in MVC No.305/2020, passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., and Additional M.A.C.T, Bidar, is hereby modified and re-determined to a sum of Rs.51,84,000/- as against Rs.27,34,340/-. The re-determined compensation shall carry interest stated supra from the date of petition till realization. v) The appellant - Insurance Company in MFA No.202887/2022 and respondent in MFA No. 201719/2023 shall deposit the balance re- - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5513-DB MFA No. 201719 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202887 of 2022 determined compensation along with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. vi) Disbursement as well as apportionment are unaltered. vii) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: AK