THE MANAGER vs SMT P B JAYANTHI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4726 OF 2019 (MV-D)
.
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,
BLOCK NO.16, 1ST FLOOR,
SURAKSHA MEDICAL, G.T.ROAD,
MADIKERI,
ALSO AT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,
REGIONAL OFFICE: 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ASST. MANAGER LEGAL.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK.N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. P.B.JAYANTHI
W/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. P.B.NITHIN
S/O LATE P.B.BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. ASHIKA.P.B.
D/O LATE P.B.BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
KOLAGADALU VILLAGE,
CHERAMBANE POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
4. SRI. SHASHI
MAJOR,
R/AT KOLAGADALU VILLAGE,
CHERAMBANE POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
5. SRI. RAJAN.B.S.
S/O SANJEEVA.B.G.,
MAJOR,
R/AT KOLAGADALU VILLAGE,
CHERAMBANE POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BIPIN.B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. B.S.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4-SERVED;)
*
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.99/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,74,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION
OF ENTIRE AMOUNT.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/
Insurance Company impugning the Judgment and Award
dated 09.04.2019, passed by the learned Principal District
Judge and M.A.C.T. at Kodagu-Madikeri, in MVC
No.99/2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned
Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has
awarded compensation to the claimants in a sum of
Rs.7,74,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the petition till its realisation.
2. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company, learned counsel for
respondents/ claimants No.1 to 3 and learned counsel for
respondent No.5/owner. Respondent No.4/driver of the
offending vehicle, despite service has remained un-
represented.
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 13.02.2016
at about 7:20 p.m., when the deceased was coming on his
Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-12/E-3190 from
Kopatti to Cherambane on his side slowly, at that time, the
driver of autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-12/A-
5873 drove the same in a high speed, in a rash and
negligent manner, endangering human life and dashed to
the Motor cycle of the deceased near the shop of Thotlu
Kunjila Hamsa at Cherambane. Due to the impact, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries to his head and also
vital parts of the body. He was immediately taken to the
Government Hospital, but, unfortunately, he succumbed to
the injuries in the Hospital.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant/
Insurance Company is on two aspects. Firstly, he submits
that the Driving Licence was not valid. Secondly, he
contends that the interest awarded is too high.
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
5. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and
1
others , the Insurance Company was liable to make
payment of the amounts even if there was no valid driving
licence and to recover the amounts from the owner and
the liability could not have been fastened on the owner in
the first instance. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the
judgment of Swaran Singh’s case as well as Rama Bai
v. M/s. Amit Minerals through Incharge Officer/
2
Competent Officer and Another , where the Supreme
Court has held that where the driver had no valid driving
licence, the Insurance Company is not permitted to avoid
its liability and the Insurance Company would be directed
to satisfy the award and then recover the same from the
insured/owner of the vehicle. Reliance was also placed on
the judgment in the case of Shamanna and Another v.
1
(2004) 3 SCC 297
2
2025 SCC Online SC 2067
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company
3
Limited and others .
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company, however, fairly concedes that given the settled
law as in the cases aforementioned and also a judgment of
this Court in the case of Manjunath Naik Vs.Smt.
4
Annapoorna Ranade and others , the legal position has
been crystallized that in the absence of a driving licence, a
pay and recovery order can be passed. In the present
case, a pay and recovery order has been passed by the
learned Tribunal.
7. On the aspect of the interest awarded by the
Tribunal, one of us, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju , has in a
recent judgment captioned United India Insurance Co.
5
Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others , after analyzing
the precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court, has
found that an award of 9% interest is in accordance with
3
(2018) 9 SCC 650
4
MFA No.2298/2020 c/w. MFA Cross Objection No.9/2021 v/o dt.19.02.2026
5
2026 SCC Online Kar 4090
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
the settled provisions in the present-day scenario,
especially in cases of death and permanent disability. It
was held that the award of 9% interest has been regularly
upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the
relevant portion of the judgment below:
“24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that the
award of interest over the last 5-10 years has infact
consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or upholding
such an award.
xxx xxx xxx
29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the
Supreme Court , reflects that the Supreme Court has
consistently held that the award of interest is
intended to recompensate the claimant for being
deprived of the use of money, which ought to have
been paid at the time of occurrence of the accident .
The rate of interest, therefore, must be just, fair and
reasonable, having regard to the prevailing economic
conditions and bank rates.
29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at
the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to-
case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and
reasonable.
29.2 T here cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’ in
determining the rate of interest and that the same
must depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The guiding principle remains that the rate
must neither be punitive nor non-existent but must
strike a balance between fairness to the claimant
and reasonableness to the insurer.
29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in
case involving death and serious injury especially,
where there is a long delay in the claimants
receiving the compensation.
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year
2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1
and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award came
to be passed in the year 2018. The learned Tribunal
has deemed it apposite to award interest on the
compensation @ 9% per annum. The award of
interest is not punitive as is fair considering the
prevailing economic condition and bank rates. In
addition, it is now 10 years since the date of the
accident.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
7.1 The aforesaid view has been considered and affirmed
by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment
captioned Bimal Gogai and Another vs. The Managing
Director, Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport
6
Corporation , wherein the award of interest at 9% per
annum, particularly in cases involving death and
permanent disability.
8. In the present case, it was the death of a person and
the claim petition has been filed by his wife and children.
Accordingly, and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme
Court as well as this Court, this Court finds no grounds to
interfere with the Impugned Award.
6
MFA No.10401/2018 c/w MFA No.5507/2018, dt.09.06.2026
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA No. 4726 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010384262019
9. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed ;
(ii) The amount in deposit by the appellant/Insurance
Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the
learned Tribunal for disbursement;
(iii) All pending applications stand closed.
(iv) No order as to costs.
(v) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this
judgment to the concerned Tribunal.
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
BMV*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
9