-1- MFA.No.6844/2015 RESERVED ON : 12.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6844 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE, COMPANY LIMITED., NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. BY SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5/4, 3RD CROSS, S.V. ARCADE, BELAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP: BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, II M.B. POST, BANGALORE - 560 076. BY ITS MANAGER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . M. BALASUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE. P. MUNIYAPPA, 2 . B.UMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O. M. BALASUBRAMANYAM, -2- MFA.No.6844/2015 BOTH ARE R/O C.P.ROAD, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. 3 . A. ALLABAKSHU, MAJOR, S/O. AKBAR SAB, R/AT NO.144-97, MARUTHI LAYOUT, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. .…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N GOPAL KRISHNA FOR R1 & R2; V/O DATED 19.02.2018 NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.173/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT MALUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,30,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, T.M. NADAF., DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M. NADAF CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is by the Insurer, challenging the judgment and award dated 18.06.2015 in MVC.No.173/2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Malur (‘Tribunal’ for short), on the ground of liability as well as quantum. -3- MFA.No.6844/2015 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. In an unfortunate accident occurred on 04.06.2012, at 04.00 p.m., the claimants lost their loving daughter aged 15 years by name Anusha. For the death of Anusha, they filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. 4. Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel, however respondent No.1 has not filed any statement or objection. Respondent No.2-Insurer filed statement of objections denying the claim petition averments, taking specific contention that there is no rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver, but it was the rider of the Honda Activa, who was rash and negligent in riding the motorcycle. Though the lorry was insured with the Insurer, the liability is subject to the policy conditions contained therein. 5. It is further contented that the driver of the lorry was not possessing valid driving license or permit as on the date of the accident. With this the Insurer sought to dismiss the claim petition. -4- MFA.No.6844/2015 6. The trial Court upon consideration of pleadings framed totally four issues, wherein Issue No.1 is with respect to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal upon consideration of materials and evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 in affirmative holding that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident due to his actionable rash and negligent driving and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is this judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this appeal by the Insurer. 7. Heard Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.N. Gopalakrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Notice of this appeal on respondent No.3 is held sufficient. 8. Sri.O.Mahesh, challenged the judgment and award on the following: GROUNDS (i) The driver of the lorry was prosecuted under Section 3(1) r/w 181 of the MV Act, apart from other penal -5- MFA.No.6844/2015 provisions of IPC, as such the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. (ii) The owner and driver both should have been made as parties, however in the case on hand only the owner of the lorry was made as a party and not the driver. As such the same is hit by non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. (iii) Further he argued that the lorry was not possessing appropriate permit to ply on the road. The deceased was aged 15 years, a minor and not an earning member. 9. With this he submits that, the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation and alternatively on quantum he submits that the Tribunal has committed serious error in allowing the claim petition and awarding a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- as compensation under the head loss of dependency. He further submits that the deceased being minor, Rs.15,000/- notional income ought to have been taken by the Tribunal, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. -6- MFA.No.6844/2015 10. To buttress his argument, he relied on the judgment dated 14.12.2023 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.6154/2019 in the case of Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and Others Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and Another, to contend that in view of the proof of knowledge of the owner regarding the person entrusted to drive the lorry was not possessing effective and valid license, as such the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. With this sought to allow the appeal and exonerate the Insurer from paying the compensation. 11. Conversely, Sri. Gopalakrishna, with all vehemence submits that the Insurer except examining its officer, not taken any pain to examine either Investigating Officer or summoned the owner of the vehicle, on the aspect of driving license. The Insurer has not filed any application seeking a direction to the owner to produce the driving license of the driver. Only on the basis of charge sheet materials invoking Section 3 of MV Act, the Insurer is not permitted to seek complete exoneration to pay the compensation. Even otherwise, if, the claimants not admitted that the driver was held to be not possessing driving license, the claimants being third parties, are entitled to be compensated. -7- MFA.No.6844/2015 The defence and contentions now urged before this Court regarding valid and effective driving license as available to the Insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) has not been substantiated by leading proper evidence either oral or documentary. The Insurer has failed to place probative evidence to substantiate the claim regarding the knowledge of the owner with respect to the non availability of license with the driver at the time of accident. In these circumstances, the contentions of the Insurer without substantive evidence requires to be rejected. To buttress his contention, he relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar and others1. 12. So far as quantum is concerned, though the deceased was a minor, but an adolescence. The Tribunal ought to have awarded appropriate compensation taking the income corresponding to the year of accident. So far as the multiplier must have been applied with respect to the age of the deceased i.e., ‘18’ in view of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2. He further submits that though the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross 1 AIR Online 2018 SC 1582 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 -8- MFA.No.6844/2015 objection, but under principle of just compensation, this Court may invoke its power under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC and enhance the compensation. With this sought to dismiss the appeal. 13. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial Court records. 14. The point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal is justified in answering Issue No.1 and awarding compensation at Rs.5,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum? 15. My answer to the above point for consideration is in Affirmative for the following: REASONS 16. Though the Insurer has taken multifold grounds on the license as the driver was prosecuted under the provisions of MV Act, however, except examining its Officer, the Insurer neither produced any substantiative documents to establish the non-availability of the license nor examined any witness to the effect that the insured had knowledge of non-availability of the -9- MFA.No.6844/2015 license with the driver at the time of accident, despite entrusted the vehicle. In the absence of such materials either in document or oral evidence, it becomes very hard for this Court to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the Insurer. It is trite that even in the absence of effective and valid license/fake license, it is for the Insurer to prove the fact that the owner, despite having knowledge of non-availability of the license entrusted the vehicle to such person. In the absence of the cogent and probative evidence, the submissions pressed by the counsel cannot be countenanced. 17. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for appellants-claimants, the deceased being an adolescence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, however, as the claimants are not in appeal/cross-objection, the same is not gone in further. 18. The Insurer, on both the grounds, i.e., on liability as well as quantum has not made out any case, which demands an interference in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the point for consideration on both the counts is answered in favour of claimants and against the Insurer. -10- MFA.No.6844/2015 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 18.06.2015 in MVC.No.173/2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Malur is confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit in this appeal shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. (iv) The appellant-Insurer shall deposit balance compensation along with accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of petition till realisation. (v) On deposit, the entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimants on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR