Facts
The appeals arose from a road accident on 18 January 2021 involving a Maxi Cab driven by Vivek R.
Source reference: p. 4One appeal was brought by Velaythan Krishnan, who sustained fractures to both bones of his left wrist; the connected appeal was brought by the deceased Ammasai Rangasamy’s two sons and daughter
Source reference: pp. 4, 7–8The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Krishnan ₹83,000 and the deceased’s claimants ₹4,53,000, but exonerated the insurer on the ground that the driver lacked a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle
Source reference: pp. 5–6The claimants appealed, challenging the insurer’s exoneration and seeking enhanced compensation
Source reference: pp. 6–8The judgment identifies the connected death claim principally as MVC No. 138/2021, though an introductory passage refers to MVC No. 130/2021
Source reference: pp. 3–4Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurer on the ground that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence on the date of the accident
Source reference: p. 9Whether the compensation awarded in MVC No. 139/2021 for Krishnan’s injuries should be enhanced
Source reference: p. 10Whether the compensation awarded in the connected death claim should be enhanced
Source reference: p. 10Law Applied
Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an aggrieved party may appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award
Source reference: pp. 2–3Relying on Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ramba Devi and Ors., 2025 (3) SCC 95, the Court applied the rule that a person holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle may drive a transport vehicle whose unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 kg
Source reference: pp. 7, 10–11The Court also applied the compensation principles reflected in its assessment of disability-related future loss, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and laid-up-period income, and its award of consortium to each of the deceased’s three children
Source reference: pp. 11–14Reasoning
The driver held a valid LMV-TR licence, and the Maxi Cab’s unladen weight was 1,840 kg—below the 7,500 kg limit. Applying Bajaj Alliance, the Court held that the licence was sufficient and that the insurer could not be exonerated on that ground
Source reference: pp. 10–11For Krishnan, the Court adopted a monthly notional income of ₹15,000, retained the Tribunal’s 10% disability assessment and multiplier of five, and recalculated future loss at ₹90,000. It also increased pain-and-suffering compensation to ₹60,000, awarded ₹50,000 for loss of amenities and ₹30,000 for two months’ lost income, bringing total compensation to ₹2,35,000
Source reference: pp. 11–13For the death claim, it awarded consortium of ₹44,000 to each of the three children, or ₹1,32,000 in total
Source reference: pp. 13–14Holding
Both appeals were allowed. The finding exonerating the insurer was set aside, and the insurer was held liable for the Tribunal’s awards and the enhancements
The operative order grants Krishnan enhanced compensation of ₹1,52,000 and the deceased’s claimants enhanced compensation of ₹1,32,000, each with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realization; the insurer was directed to deposit the amounts within six weeks, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the entire enhanced compensation
Source reference: pp. 14–15The judgment contains an apparent inconsistency regarding Krishnan’s enhancement: the compensation total of ₹2,35,000 less the Tribunal’s award of ₹83,000 yields ₹1,52,000, as stated in the operative order, but paragraph 13 describes the enhancement as ₹1,32,000
Source reference: pp. 13, 15Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
RAMU RANGASWAMYvsVIVEK R
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
