SRI. SRINIVASA vs SRI. RAVI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5539 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SRINIVASA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.211/E, KUVEMPU ROAD,
VASANTHAPURA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 061.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.L.SREENIVAS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAVI
S/O BORAIAH,
AGE NOR KNOWN BUT MAJOR,
R/AT NO.36, BORIKOPPALU,
DEVALAPURA HOBLI,
KORADAHALLI POST,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RD
D.B.PLAZA, 3 FLOOR, 47, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-600 014.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.KRISHNA KISHORE., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.18.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2099/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-
18), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment
and Award dated 18.01.2017 in MVC No.2099/2015
passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the
claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants was
allowed and the learned Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.13,51,000/- along with interest at 9%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. The present appeal has been filed by the
appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded. The learned Tribunal has also
affixed the compensation on the owner of the offending
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
vehicle in view of the fact that the respondent No.1/owner
did not have a valid driving license.
2. Given the pendency of this appeal for more than
seven years, with the consent of the counsel for the
parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final
disposal at the stage of admission.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has
contended that the Impugned Order suffers from an
infirmity, in as much as the amounts awarded by the
learned Tribunal have been wrongly calculated including
the notional income. Learned counsel submits that the
accident took place in the year 2014 and that the notional
income at that time was Rs.8,500/-. In addition, it is
contended that compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’
and ‘funeral expenses’ have not been awarded in
accordance with settled legal position. The learned counsel
for the appellants/claimants lastly contends that the
liability has wrongly been fastened on the owner of the
offending vehicle since the driver Suresh, S/o of Bettappa
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
did not have a driving licence as such a ‘pay and recover’
order should have been passed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company on the other hand while admitting that the
notional income for the year 2014 was Rs.8,500/-, submits
that the Court has granted amounts towards ‘loss of
affection and funeral expenses’. Learned counsel for the
respondent also contends that in terms of the order dated
21.02.2024, no interest is to be awarded for the delayed
period of 788 days in filing the present appeal, if the
compensation is enhanced.
5. Since the facts are not disputed, this Court does not
deem it necessary to advert to them. However, for the
purpose of this judgment it is apposite to set out the
calculation as was adopted by the learned Tribunal in its
Award for grant of the compensation.
6. The learned Tribunal considered the notional income
of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and given that the deceased
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
was aged 24 years, added 50% of the income as future
prospects. Accordingly, the compensation was calculated
as: Rs.8,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter,
50% was deducted towards personal expenses as the
deceased was a bachelor which is, Rs.12,000 - 50% =
Rs.6,000/- per month. Adding the multiplier of ‘18’, the
learned Tribunal calculated compensation towards ‘loss of
dependency’ as 6,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.12,96,000/-. In
addition, the learned Tribunal awarded amounts towards
‘loss of love and affection’ as well as transportation in the
following terms:
Compensation Compensation
heads amount
1 Towards loss of Rs.12,96,000/-
dependency
2 Towards loss of love Rs. 30,000/-
and affection
3 Towards
transportation of dead
body, funeral &
obsequies ceremony
expenses
Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.13,51,000/-
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
7. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.13,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from
the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
8. Since the notional income was wrongly taken by the
learned Tribunal, it is to be enhanced to Rs.8,500/- and
accordingly given that the avocation of the deceased was
of a coolie or welder, the compensation towards ‘future
prospects’ would have to be granted at 40%. Accordingly,
the ‘loss of dependency’ would be calculated as follows:
Loss of Dependency Amount
Rs.12,85,200/-
8500 + 40% = 11,900/- -
50% = Rs.5,950/-
Rs.5,950/- x 12 x 18
8.1 Since there were two dependents, ‘loss of
consortium’ would be awarded at a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each in view of the settled position in terms of the
judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay
1
Sethi . The compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ and
‘funeral expenses’ are awarded at Rs.15,000/- each. The
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
accident having occurred in the year 2014, escalation
towards conventional heads would be taken at 20%. Thus,
the revised calculation as regards the amount of
compensation would be as follows :
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency 12,85,200/-
2 Loss of Consortium 96,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 18,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses 18,000/-
TOTAL 14,17,200/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 13,51,000/-
Enhanced compensation 66,200/-
9. So far as concerns the second contention on liability
to pay the compensation, the learned Tribunal found that
on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle, one
Suresh, S/o. Betappa, was driving the vehicle without
having a valid driving license. The learned Tribunal
returned the finding based on the findings in the charge
sheet at Exhibit P12 which was filed against the driver and
owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal then gave a
finding that the evidence revealed that Suresh was not
driving the vehicle, but Ravi, who is the owner and
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle and thus it was
found that in view of the contradictory versions, the
contention of the respondent No.1 was not accepted. The
learned Tribunal further held that since the driver Suresh
did not have a driving license, there was a breach of the
Insurance Policy leading to no liability of the Insurance
Company.
10. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
2
Vs. Swaran Singh has dealt with in detail about the
liability of the Insurance Company when a driving licence
is either not produced; there was no driving licence; the
driving licence was fake; the licence was granted but had
expired and had not been renewed, the license granted for
one class of restriction of vehicle, but the vehicle was a
different class and/or the vehicle was being driven by a
person having the learner's license. The law in this behalf
has been crystallized by the Supreme Court and a finding
has been given that since the liability of the insurer arises
2
(2004) 3 SCC 297
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
both from the contract as well as statute, the Insurance
Company cannot escape its liability merely by stating that
there was no driving licence. The beneficial legislation
must be accorded liberal interpretation and the liability of
an Insurance Company is a statutory liability. The
Supreme Court in the Swaran Singh’s case also placed
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and
3
Others . The similar view was taken by the Supreme
Court in the case of Pappu and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar
4
Lamba and anr .
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Pappu has held
that an enquiry is to be held as to whether the owner of
the vehicle has breached the policy based on which
recovery rights can be granted to the Insurance Company.
It was held that based on this enquiry the compensation
should be paid by the insurer with liberty to recover the
same from the owner. An order for pay and recovery was
3
(2003) 3 SCC 338
4
(2018) 3 SCC 208
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
passed thereafter. The relevant extract of Pappu and
Others ’ case is set out below:
“9. On the basis of these pleadings, the matter
proceeded before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the
respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle did not
produce any evidence in support of his plea taken
in the Written Statement that the offending
vehicle was plied by an authorised person having
a valid driving permit. All that respondent No.1 did
was to produce a driving licence purportedly of one
Joginder Singh. The Tribunal adverted to the said
driving licence but found that nowhere the owner of the
vehicle has asserted that the Truck No.DIL-5955 was in
fact driven by said Joginder Singh at the time of the
accident. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed issue No.3 and answered the same in favour of
the Insurance Company as follows:
“Issue No.3: Whether the Truck No. DIL-
5955 was not being driven by a person
having valid and effective driving licence?”
XXX XXX XXX
10. This view taken by the Tribunal was assailed
before the High Court by the claimants. No other
contention was raised before the High Court except
about the liability of the Insurance Company. The High
Court, after analysing the record, negatived the said
contention in the following words:
“5. The only question which has been raised before
this Court is, whether Insurance Company has rightly
been held not liable by holding that Truck No. DIL
5955 was not being driven by a person having
valid licence. This Court has to consider, whether
findings recorded in respect of issue no.3 is correct
or not.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants could not
dispute that neither any pleadings nor evidence have
been led before Tribunal to suggest or to tell, as a
matter of fact, that aforesaid truck was being driven
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
by Sri Joginder Singh. It is not in dispute that owner
of aforesaid vehicle produced driving licence which
was in the name of Sri Joginder Singh but at no
stage it is pleaded or brought on record before
Tribunal that Sri Joginder Singh was the person who
was driving aforesaid Truck.
XXX XXX XXX
16. The next question is: whether in the fact situation
of this case the insurance company can be and ought to
be directed to pay the claim amount, with liberty to
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle
(respondent No.1)?
17. This issue has been answered in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). In that case,
it was contended by the insurance company that once
the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the
Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the
liability only on the owner and/or the driver of the
vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the
insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the
Tribunal or the Court can direct the insurance
company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s)
and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the
earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no
reason to deviate from the said well-settled principle.
In paragraph 107, the Court then observed thus:
“107. We may, however, hasten to add that the
Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise
their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon
consideration of the facts and circumstances of
each case and in the event such a direction has
been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact
to the effect that the insurer has been able to
establish that the insured has committed a
breach of contract of insurance as envisaged
under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section
(2) of Section BHH149 of the Act, the insurance
company shall be entitled to realize the awarded
amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle,
as the case may be, in execution of the same
award having regard to the provisions of Sections
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event,
having regard to the limited scope of inquiry
in the proceedings before the Tribunal it
has not been able to do so, the insurance
company may initiate a separate action
therefor against the owner or the driver of
the vehicle or both, as the case may
be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the
evidence becomes available to or comes to the
notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for
one reason or the other, the insurer was not..."
18. Further, in para 110, the Court National Insurance
Co.Ltd. (National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Swaran Singh,
(2004)3 SCC 297 has observed thus:
"110. Summary of Findings:
XXX XXX XXX
(iii) The breach of policy condition, e.g.
disqualification of driver or invalid driving
licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-
section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be
proved to have been committed by the
insured for avoiding liability by the insurer.
Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence
or disqualification of the driver for driving
at the relevant time, are not in themselves
defences available to the insurer against
either the insured or the third parties. To
avoid its liability towards insured, the
insurer has to prove that the insured was
guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling
the condition of the policy regarding use of
vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who
was not disqualified to drive at the relevant
time,
(iv) The insurance companies are, however,
with a view to avoid their liability must not
only establish the available defence(s)
raised in the said proceedings but must also
establish 'breach' on the part of the owner
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for
would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria
as to how said burden would be discharged,
inasmuch as the same would depend upon
the facts and circumstance of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove
breach on the part of the insured
concerning the policy condition regarding
holding of a valid licence by the driver or his
qualification to drive during the relevant
period, the insurer would not be allowed to
avoid its liability towards the insured unless
the said breach or breaches on the condition
of driving licence is/are so fundamental as
are found to have contributed to the cause
of the accident. The Tribunals in
interpreting the policy conditions would
apply “the rule of main purpose” and the
concept of “fundamental breach” to allow
defences available to the insurer under
Section 149(2) of the Act.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has found
that the driver of the vehicle did not have a driving license
at all. In addition, it was held that the police
investigation/charge sheet [Ex.P12] had affirmed this
finding.
13. Given the settled law in this behalf, the learned
Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
respondent No.2/Insurance Company to make payment of
the awarded compensation to the appellants/claimants
and directed recovery from the owner of the offending
vehicle.
14. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.14,17,200/- along with interest at
9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal from
the date of petition till the date of deposit. However, the
appellants/claimants will not be entitled to any interest for
the period of delay of 788 days.
15. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 18.01.2017, in
MVC.No.2099/2015, passed by the III Addl. Senior
Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is
modified, awarding total compensation of
Rs.14,17,200/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal
14
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
However, the appellants/claimants shall not be
entitled to interest for the period of delay of 788
days;
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award
of the learned Tribunal remains undisturbed;
(iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
with interest applicable therein, as awarded by the
learned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgement and shall be entitled to recover the said
amount from the insured owner of the vehicle, in
accordance with law.
(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same
shall be released in favour of the
appellants/claimants, on filing of an appropriate
application by the appellants/claimants for
withdrawal of the enhanced amount;
15
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55093
MFA No. 5539 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010172372019
(vi) The amounts deposited by the respondent
No.2/Insurance company, if any, shall be
transferred to the concerned Tribunal for
disbursement.
(vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly;
(viii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of
this judgment along with its records to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith;
(ix) No order as to costs.
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
16