AI Insights
This case involves multiple appeals related to two motor vehicle accidents that occurred on October 10, 2006, involving a motorcycle and a car. The accidents resulted in the deaths of two individuals, H. Hanish and G. Ajith Kumar, who were riding the motorcycle. Their parents filed compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, which were initially awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance company appealed against the liability and the quantum of compensation, while the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation awarded. The High Court's decision addressed both the liability of the insurance company and the adequacy of the compensation awarded.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799268 (HC-KARNATAKA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
13-05-2014
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MAY, 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR M.F.A.NO.10777 OF 2008 A/W MISC.CVL.NO.14005/2009 c/w MFA.NO.10778/2008 A/W MISC.CVL.NO.14004/2009, MFA.NO.98/2009 AND MFA NO.100/2009(MV) IN MFA NO.10777 of 2008 A/W MISC.CVL.14005/2009 BETWEEN:- THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.24, I FLOOR, CLASSIC BUILDING RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-27. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING NO.25, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. APPELLANT Common (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:- 1. P. HARIDASS S/O K. ACHUTHAR NAIR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. - 2 - 2. SMT. HEMALATHA W/O P. HARIDASS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH R/A NO.1634, I CROSS GAYATHRI SCHOOL ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR, VIJANAPURA BANGALORE 560 016. 3. T. MUTHANNA S/O THIMME GOWDA MAJOR, R/A NO.17/2 LAKSHMI TEMPLE ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 095. RESPONDENTS Common (BY SRI. R. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR LAWYERS NET FOR R1 & R2 R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) --------- THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.7675/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE, (SCCH. NO.18), AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 6,06,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. MISC.CVL.14005/2009 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PERMIT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT IN DEPOSIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - MFA NO.10778 of 2008(MV) A/W MISC.CVL.14004/2009 BETWEEN:- THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.24, I FLOOR, CLASSIC BUILDING RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-27. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING NO.25, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. APPELLANT Common (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:- 1. G. GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI S/O LATE SHANKARA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. SMT. BHUVANA G. PILLAI W/O G. GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 3. TUSHARA PILLAI D/O G. GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. ALL R/A NO.404, 5TH ‘A’ MAIN CLASSIC PARADISE, BEGUR ROAD BOMMANAHALLI, NEAR ARALIMARA BUS STOP BANGALORE 560 068. 4. T. MUTHANNA S/O THIMME GOWDA MAJOR, - 4 - R/A NO.17/2 LAKSHMI TEMPLE ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 095. RESPONDENTS Common (BY SRI. R. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR LAWYERS NET FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. M.R. RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) ------- THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.7676/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, METROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE, (SCCH. NO.18), AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 9,95,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. MISC.CVL.14004/2009 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PERMIT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT IN DEPOSIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MFA NO.98 of 2009(MV) BETWEEN:- 1. P. HARIDASS S/O K. ACHUTHAR NAIR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. HEMALATHA W/O P. HARIDASS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. - 5 - BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 1634 1ST CROSS, GAYATHRI SCHOOL ROAD DOORVANI NAGAR, VIJANAPURA BANGALORE 560 016. …….. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR LAWYERS NET) AND:- 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.24, CLASSIC BUILDING RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-27. 2. T. MUTHANNA, MAJOR S/O THIMME GOWDA R/AT NO.17/2, LAKSHMI TEMPLE ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-95. ……… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. S. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ------- THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.7675/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, (SCCH. NO.18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION. - 6 - IN MFA NO.100 of 2009(MV) BETWEEN:- 1. GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI S/O LATE SHANKARA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. BHUVANA G. PILLAI W/O GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 3. TUSHARA PILLAI D/O G. GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.404 5TH ‘A’ MAIN, CLASSIC PARADISE BEGUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI NEAR ARALIMARA BUS STOP BANGALORE-68. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR LAWYERS NET) AND:- 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.24, CLASSIC BUILDING RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-27. 2. T. MUTHANNA, MAJOR S/O THIMME GOWDA R/AT NO.17/2, LAKSHMI TEMPLE ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-95. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. S. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 7 - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.7676/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, (SCCH. NO.18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS AND MISC.CVLs. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.04.2014 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T All these appeals under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act are arising out of common judgment and award dated 30.6.2008 passed in MVC No.7675/2006 and MVC No.7676/2006 on the file of III Addl. Small Cases Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(for short ‘Tribunal’), Bangalore (SCCH-18). Therefore they are disposed of by his common judgment. 2. One H. Hanish and one G. Ajith Kumar aged about 25 years and 27 years were proceeding - 8 - on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EP- 7318 on 10.10.2006 over the silk board flyover, Madivala, Bangalore at about 10.50 p.m. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-01-B-5467 came in rash & negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the impact, both H. Hanish-rider of the motor cycle and G. Ajith Kumar-pillion rider died on the spot. As such, claiming compensation of Rs.50.00 lakhs each, the parents of both the deceased have filed claim petitions under Section 166 of M.V. Act in MVC No.7675/2006 and MVC No.7676/2006 respectively. 3. Both the claim petitions have been resisted by the owner and the insurer of the car involved in the accident denying all the material averments made out in both the claim petitions as to the age of the deceased, avocation of the deceased, their - 9 - monthly income, relationship of the claimants with the deceased etc., etc., apart from denying negligence attributed to the driver of the car. Further, though the insurance company admitted the issuance of policy which was valid as on the date of the accident, it is contended that the driver of the car did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident as he had a driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle, whereas, the vehicle involved in the accident is a transport vehicle. Hence, the insurance company has sought for dismissal of the claim petition by fastening liability upon the owner of the car. 4. Both the claim petitions came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence placed on record both oral and documentary by the claimants and the insurance company, after taking into - 10 - consideration the avocation and income of the deceased and the monthly dependency, held that the accident and the resultant death of deceased H. Hanish and G. Ajith Kumar was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car involved in question by its driver and thereby awarded compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- on account of death of H. Hanish and Rs.9,95,000/- on account of death of Ajith Kumar together with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held both respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and the Insurer of the car are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award and directed Insurance company to indemnify the owner of the car. 5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and liability to pay the compensation in MVC Nos.7675/2006 and 7676/2006, the Insurance company has preferred MFA - 11 - No.10777/2008 and MFA No.10778/2008 respectively, whereas, the claimants have preferred MFA Nos.98/2009 and MFA No.100/2009 for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC Nos.7675/2006 and 7676/2006. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the Insurance company. Perused the records. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of dependency’ in both the claim petitions is on the lower side having regard to the avocation and the monthly income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side in - 12 - both the claim petitions and that it requires to be enhanced. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would contend that the compensation awarded in both the claim petitions is on the higher side and the deduction of 1/3rd of income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased is uncalled for having regard to the fact that both the deceased were bachelors and it is settled position of law that in such case, 50% of their income will have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the monthly income of both the deceased and the multiplier made applicable is also not proper and appropriate. Further, it is contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the higher side. The - 13 - learned counsel would vehemently submit that the driver of the car insured by the insurance company involved in the accident did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. He had licence to drive LMV non-transport vehicle which was granted for a period of 20 years, whereas, the car involved in the accident is a transport vehicle, for which the driver had no valid and effective driving licence and as such, the order of the Tribunal directing the insurance company to indemnify the owner of the car is per-se illegal and it requires to be quashed. For all these reasons, the counsel for the Insurance company has prayed to allow both the appeals filed by the Insurance company while dismissing both the appeals filed by the claimants and dismiss both the claim petitions as against the Insurance company by directing the owner of the car to pay the entire compensation. - 14 - 8. Having heard the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon going through the entire material placed on record including the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our determination:- • Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both the claim petitions is just and proper? • Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the car is proper? Re-Point No.1:- At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no challenge to the finding given by the Tribunal that the accident and resultant death of both the - 15 - deceased was on account of rash and negligent driving of the car involved in the accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,06,000/- as compensation on account of death of deceased H. Hanish and Rs.9,95,000/- on account of death of G. Ajith Kumar. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded in both the claim petitions is on the lower side and that it requires to be enhanced. The Insurance company on the other hand has contended that the compensation awarded in both the claim petitions is on the higher side and that it requires to be reduced considerably. Therefore in order to find out whether the compensation awarded in both the claim petitions is just and proper, it is necessary to go through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the claimants in both the claim petitions. It has - 16 - come in the evidence that deceased H. Hanish was aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident and was working as Process Executive in Infosys and getting salary of Rs.11,738/- per month. Ex-P9 is the salary certificate wherein his gross salary is shown as Rs.11,738/-. Out of that, basic salary is Rs.2,750/-, Dearness allowance Rs.850/-, HRA Rs.1,440/-, Special allowance Rs.1,415/-, variable pay Rs.325/-,attendance incentive Rs.900/-, COLA Rs.1,750/-, Provident fund Rs.432/-, Gratuity Rs.173/-, Loyalty bonus Rs.903/-. The Tribunal upon going through the salary certificate and the break-up shown therein has taken into account the net monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- at the time of his death. But upon perusal of the salary certificate Ex-P9 and the break-up shown therein, the monthly income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- taken by the Tribunal appears to be on - 17 - the lower side. We are inclined to take his monthly income as Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.6,000/- taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50%. Since the deceased was bachelor at the time of his death, 50% of the income is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The monthly dependency comes to Rs.3,500/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the youngest of the parents i.e., the age of the mother has to be taken into account for selection of the multiplier. The age of the mother was ‘48’ at the time of death of the deceased. So the multiplier applicable is ‘13’. If monthly ‘loss of dependency’ of Rs.3,500/- is multiplied by ‘12’, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.42,000/-. If it is multiplied by ‘13’ multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,46,000/- - 18 - . We accordingly award Rs.5,46,000/- towards ‘loss of dependency’ (Rs.3,500/-x 12 x 13). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads, which is also on the lower side. We therefore propose to award a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards conventional heads, such as ‘Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses’, ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of estate’. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs.6,06,000/- which is just compensation. The claimants have failed to make out a case for enhancement. Coming to the compensation to be awarded on account of death of Ajith Kumar, it has to be stated that he was working as Sales Advisor in M/s. Customer Operational Services(Bangalore) Private Limited and getting salary of Rs.27,832/-. Ex-P21 are the five salary slips issued by M/s. Customer Operational Services Pvt Ltd.,. The salary slip for - 19 - the month of September 2006 is relevant for the purpose of decision in this case, since the accident occurred in the month of October 2006. The salary slip for the month of September 2006 would disclose his monthly salary was Rs.27,832/-, whereas, the salary slip for the month of June 2006 discloses his salary as Rs.21,915/-, for the month of July 2006 Rs.19,776/-. Therefore, taking into account the average salary, we are inclined to take his monthly salary as Rs.23,040/-, the annual income therefore comes to Rs.2,76,480/-. The annual income-tax and professional tax comes to Rs.28,872/-. If an amount of Rs.28,872/- is deducted from Rs.2,76,480/-, the net annual income comes to Rs.2,47,608/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his annual income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. In that case, annual dependency comes to Rs.1,23,804/-. - 20 - Having regard to the age of the youngest of the parents, i.e., the mother of the deceased, the multiplier applicable is ‘13’. If annual ‘loss of dependency’ of Rs.1,23,804/- is multiplied by ‘13’, the total ‘loss of dependency’ comes of Rs.16,09,452/-. So we award Rs.16,09,452/- towards ‘loss of dependency’. In addition to that, we award Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads such as ‘transportation of dead-body and funeral expenses’, ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of estate’. Thus the claimants in MVC No.7676/2009 are entitled for Rs.16,59,452/- compensation as against Rs.9,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,64,452/- together with 6% interest therein from the date of petition till the date of realisation. - 21 - Re-point No.2 Regarding the liability to pay the compensation, the Insurance company has taken up a contention that the driver of the car had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Ex-R1 is the driving licence extract of the driver T.D. Ravi Kumar issued by the competent authority, which discloses that he had licence to drive the LMV(NT), which was effective from 27.3.2006 to 26.3.2026. It is not in dispute that the car involved in the accident is a transport vehicle and as such it goes without saying that he had no licence to drive the car in question as on the date of the accident or a specific endorsement by the licensing authority authorising him to drive LMV transport vehicle. Under such circumstances, it was not proper on the part of the Tribunal to hold that both respondent Nos.1 and 2- the Insurance - 22 - company and the owner of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the respective claimants and to direct the respondent No.1 Insurance company to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the award. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court:- 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kusum Rai & Others, reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 SC; 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Angad Kol & others, reported in 2009 ACJ 1411 SC; 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Another, reported in 2008 ACJ 2161 SC; 4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prabhu Lal, reported in 2008 ACJ 627 SC; & - 23 - 5. Malla Prakashrao Vs. Malla Janaki & Others, reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 343. 10. We have gone through all these decisions of the Apex Court. In all these decisions, the Supreme Court held that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence and there is breach of policy conditions, but directed the Insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and to recover the same from the owner. In view of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel, we deem it just and proper to direct the respondent No.1-Insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and to recover the same from the second respondent- - 24 - owner of the car. Accordingly, we pass the following order:- 1. MFA No.10777/2008 filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.7675/2006 is allowed-in-part and MFA No.98/2009 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.7675/2006 is modified. The claim petition filed by the claimants is partly allowed only as against the owner of the car awarding compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- together with interest. However, the respondent Insurance company shall pay/deposit the entire compensation amount and shall recover - 25 - the same from the owner of the car. The compensation amount shall be apportioned and invested as ordered by the Tribunal. 2. MFA No.10778/2008 filed by the Insurance company and MFA No.100/2009 filed by the claimants against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.7676/2006 are allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:- The claimants are awarded enhanced compensation amount of Rs.6,64,452/- together with 6% interest from the date of petition till the realisation from the owner of the car only. However, the insurance company shall pay/deposit the enhanced compensation within three weeks from - 26 - the date of receipt of the copy of award. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs each shall be deposited in the name of both the claimants in any National/Scheduled bank of their choice for a period of five years. The remaining amount together with interest shall be released to both the claimants in equal proportion. In view of disposal of the main matters on merits, the relief sought for in Misc.Cvl.No.14005/2009 in MFA No.10777/2008 and Misc.Cvl.No.14004/2009 in MFA No.10778/2008 does not survive for consideration. Hence, Misc.Cvl.N.14005/2009 and Misc.Cvl.No.14004/2009 are dismissed as having become infructuous. The amount in deposit including the statutory amount in the appeals filed by the Insurance - 27 - company shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *mn/- "
Other Referred Cases
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kusum Rai & Others, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Angad Kol & others, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Another, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prabhu Lal, Malla Prakashrao Vs. Malla Janaki & Others
Laws Referred To
MV Act, CPC
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
Income Tax Act 2025
₹0
Letter of Indemnity - Registering as Representative Assessee for Deceased
Mehul₹0
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026