Bangalore District Court
Nagamma vs Ganapathi Stone Crushers on 12 June, 2025
KABC020085132019
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITYSCCH-17
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACMM,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025
M.V.C.No.1731/2019
Petitioners 1.Smt. Nagamma,
W/o. Late M. Shivaram,
Aged about 49 years,
2. Sri. Vinod Kumar,
S/o. Late M. Shivaram,
Aged about 31 years,
3. Sri.G.S. Manjunath,
S/o. Late M. Shivaram,
Aged about 27 years,
All are residing at;
Garani village and post,
I.D. Halli Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk,
SCCH-17 2 MVC No. 1731-2019
Tumkur District
(By Sri. T.R. Nagabhushana Adv., )
V/s.
Respondents 1. M/s.Ganapathi Stone Crushers,
Lakshmi Palace, Sunkadakatte,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore - 560023.
Rep. By its Proprietor,
Sri. S.T. Ramesh,
S/o. Sri. Thammanna Gowda,
Aged about 46 years,
( By Sri.Ramesh Gouda K., Adv.,)
2. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, 5th floor,
Krushi Bhavan, Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore- 560 027
(By Sri. B.R. Venkatesh Kamath.,
Adv., )
JUDGMENT
The petitioners filed this petition U/s 166 of the Motor vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of one M. Shivaram in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06-01-2018.
SCCH-17 3 MVC No. 1731-2019
Initially the present claim petition by disposed off by judgment and award dated 19-11-2021. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein has filed Mis. Petition No.180- 2023 which came to be allowed by order dated 05-09- 2024 by setting aside the judgment and award dated 19- 11-2021 with an order to restore the petition for fresh disposal.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
On 06-01-2018 at about 5-00 p.m., the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-02-JH-
4652 along with pillion rider by name Chandrashekar on the extreme left side of the road from Byatha towards Hesarghatta , while proceeding so reached near C.P.D.O. Coli form, the driver of the road roller vehicle bearing Reg.
No.KA-41-P-9584 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the SCCH-17 4 MVC No. 1731-2019 deceased from opposite direction and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. It is further stated that immediately after the accident deceased was shifted Sapthagiri hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 7.45 p.m. while undergoing treatment. Thereafter postmortem was conducted and handed over the body to the petitioners and they have performed funeral and obsequies ceremonies by spending an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as Secretary at Yenne Beeja Belegarara Sangha Nigama and also doing agricultural work and thereby earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. and contributing his entire earnings to the maintenance of the family. Due to the untimely death of deceased the SCCH-17 5 MVC No. 1731-2019 petitioners have suffered mentally and physically, they have lost their bread earner.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending road roller vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584 are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of notices, both the respondents appeared through their counsel, filed separate written statements.
The respondent No.1- owner of filed road roller vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584 filed written statement by denying all the averments of the petition. Further respondent No.1 submits that being the registered owner of the offending vehicle has got insured the vehicle with respondent No.2 herein and the SCCH-17 6 MVC No. 1731-2019 respondent No.2 had issued a policy bearing No.1- 071602311P109120899 which was valid from 27-09-2017 to 26-09-2018 , hence it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Further submitted that the driver of offending vehicle valid and effective driving licence and offending vehicle had valid permit as on the date of accident. It has contended that there is no carelessness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, as such petition is not at all maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, the respondent No.1 -owner prays to dismiss the petition against it.
The respondent No.2 -insurer of offending vehicle filed written statement by admitting the issuance of policy and the liability of this respondent, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid SCCH-17 7 MVC No. 1731-2019 and effective driving licence. Further denied the age, avocation, alleged disability and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed earlier:
ISSUES
1.Whether the petitioners prove that Sri Shivaram, died due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 06.01.2018 at about 5.00 p.m. pm Byatha towards Hesaraghatta road, at CPDO Coli farm, involving Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584 belonging to respondent No.1 and the said vehicle insured with second respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident has mainly occurred due to SCCH-17 8 MVC No. 1731-2019 rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the only legal heirs and dependants of the deceased?
4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate? From whom?
5.To what order or award?
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 20 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.20 and closed their side.
Respondent No.2 examined Police inspector at Jalahalli police station as RW1. The Proprietor of respondent No.1 concern examined as RW2 and got marked 3 document as Ex.R1 to R.3. Respondent No.2 examined their Official as RW.3 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.R4 to R6 and closed their side. SCCH-17 9 MVC No. 1731-2019
6. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the affirmative,
Issue No.3: In the affirmative,
Issue No.4: In the affirmative,
Issue No.5: As per final orders
for the following.-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1 & 2: These two issues are interlinked with each other in respect of fact of accident and the alleged negligence of offending vehicle. Hence, these two issues are taken for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner No.1 has filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination, which is considered as P.W.1. SCCH-17 10 MVC No. 1731-2019 In support of her claim, she has produced copies of FIR, charge sheet, spot mahazar PM report, inquest report, sketch, IMV report, which are marked as Ex.P1 to 7.
9. As per the documents, produced by the petitioners, Ex.P1- FIR is came to be registered on the basis of first information given by one P.K. Chandrashekar. In the said Ex.P1, the first informant alleged the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Road Roller Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584. The Ex.P3 & 6 are the spot mahazar and sketch wherein the accident spot is in the left side portion of the road. It is alleged that the driver of Road Roller Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584 drove his vehicle in reverse direction and ran over the deceased who was in his motorcycle behind the Road Roller Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P- 9584. Thus it is the duty of the driver of the Road Roller SCCH-17 11 MVC No. 1731-2019 Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584 to be more vigilant while driving his vehicle in reverse direction. If the driver of Road Roller Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584 was not negligent while taking reverse the said accident was not going to be caused. Thus the contents of mahazar and complaint establishes the gross negligence of the driver of Road Roller Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-9584.
10. The Ex.P7 is the IMV report of vehicles involved in the said accident. On perusal of the same it reveals that the offending Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41- P-9584 has not damaged and the motor cycle bearing No. KA-02-JH-4652 in which the deceased was proceeding has got damaged in its head light mask left side, fuel tank both side pressed inwards, crash guard damaged, rear right side indicator, handle bar left side. Thus it evidentiates that the driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing SCCH-17 12 MVC No. 1731-2019 No.KA-41-P-9584 has dashed the motor cycle and caused the accident.
11. The contents of mahazar, sketch and IMV report prima facie establishes the negligence of the driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584. The fact of accident is not disputed by both the respondents.
12. The Ex.P2 is the charge sheet which came to be filed against the driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.3(1) 181 of MV Act wherein the IO after detailed investigation has found that there is a negligence on the part of driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 for the accident. No other grounds and independent evidence are produced by the respondents to prove the contrary to the opinion of the IO as per Ex.P2 charge sheet.
SCCH-17 13 MVC No. 1731-2019
13. The fact of accident is established before this tribunal. The Ex.P4 postmortem report and Ex.P5 inquest report also establishes that Shivram died due to the multiple injuries sustained by him in the said RTA dated 06-01-2018.
14. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne SCCH-17 14 MVC No. 1731-2019 in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending van.
15. In view of the ratio laid down in the authorities referred to above and applying the settled principle of law SCCH-17 15 MVC No. 1731-2019 to the case at hand, which is further supported by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by PW-1, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident leading to this case indeed occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 resulting in the death of one Shivaram by sustaining injuries. Therefore Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3
16. As contended in the petition the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Shivaram. The respondents do not specifically deny the relationship of petitioners with deceased. The petitioners to prove their relationship with the deceased, have produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners which are marked under Ex.P17 to P.20. SCCH-17 16 MVC No. 1731-2019 During the course of recording the evidence the notarized copies of Aadhar cards are compared with the original documents and found correct.
17. As per these documents the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are children of deceased Shivaram but the respondents do not dispute the relationship of the petitioners with deceased. The respondents do not dispute the Aadhar cards produced by the petitioners. The respondents have not adduced any evidence to disprove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
18. At the time of arguments the contention is raised by the respondent No.2 insurance company that the petitioner No.2 & 3 being the major sons are not entitled for compensation.
SCCH-17 17 MVC No. 1731-2019
19. In this regard, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 between National Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s. Birender and others, wherein it is held as follows;
"A claim petition filed by major married and earning sons of the deceased mother, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
"12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166 (1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act.
"It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and SCCH-17 18 MVC No. 1731-2019 earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years".
The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.102868/2014 between Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Gangappa and others held as follows:
"Having considered the principles laid down in the judgements referred to supra, this Court has taken note of recent judgement of the Apex Court in Birender, wherein it is held that even married sons are SCCH-17 19 MVC No. 1731-2019 entitled for compensation not only on conventional heads but also on loss of dependency. Hence, the very contention of the appellant-insurance company cannot be accepted.
26. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.118/2018 dated 26.03.2021, wherein also this Court by relying upon the judgement in Birender, held that even married sons are also entitled for compensation not only on conventional head but also on loss of dependency''.
In the High Court of Punjab and Hariyana at Chadigarh in FAO No.1007 and 1008 /2014 dated 10-02-2020 between Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Vipanjit Kaur and others "No doubt, the son is aged around 48 years and working in the Air Force while the daughter is aged around 42 years and her husband is posted as a Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police and both of them are thus having their own independent sources of income. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in SCCH-17 20 MVC No. 1731-2019 short, 'the Act') admittedly is a welfare statute for the betterment of the claimants. No doubt, both the claimants are grown up and self-dependent but that does not mean or can be construed that they did not suffer any loss on account of sudden loss of both of their parents. It has been rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that son and the daughter with the death of their parents have lost protection, physical as well as psychological, besides sense of fulfillment of having parents to look after and cater to their daily requirements of life and emotional support. No doubt, the parents were senior citizens but one has to take a realistic approach that they would certainly be looking after their grand-children for their nurturing, psychological and physical well- being, and would be a source of joy and happiness for the entire family. By this loss the family has lost companionship, and the pain and agony that has accompanied this sudden loss can never be compensated in terms of money. One cannot ignore the fact that Surinder Kaur even in her advance age would be contributing her lot in the household chores, cooking food, cleaning and such like daily duties. The family claims to be having agricultural land besides having milching cattle and therefore, in rural household it is a matter of SCCH-17 21 MVC No. 1731-2019 common knowledge that women contribute towards looking after the cattle and agricultural produce and contribute their lot towards the source of earning from these fields. The learned Tribunal has lost sight of the fact in not awarding compensation on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which are handsomely part of calculations in such claim petitions. Since there is no division of heads under which various amounts of compensation has been awarded, but having an overall look at the total compensation awarded in case of each of the deceased being ` 4.52 lacs and ` 3.50 lacs in lump sum and considering what has been left out as detailed in the foregoing lines, keeping in view the prevalent price index, there is no overwhelming occasion for this Court to show indulgence and thus this Court does not feel that the amount so awarded could be in any manner termed to be excessive necessitating intervention by this Court and rather appears to be just and appropriate in the prevalent scenario. In the light of the same, the impugned award does not call for any interference and both the present appeals as such are disposed of as dismissed.SCCH-17 22 MVC No. 1731-2019
On the same point of law in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2021 SCC Online Kerala 3209 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Shalumol and Others). The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held in this case, the earning sons are also dependents and also entitled compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
20. On the same point of law in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in MFA No.2332/2013(MV-D) in the case of Dr. Amrutha @ Amruthavathi V/s Chavalla Kumar Raja Naidu & another it is held that, even the major children can claim the compensation.
By applying the above precedent merely because the petitioner No.3 is the married daughter and petitioner No.2 & 3 being the major sons of the deceased their application cannot be rejected. In this case also, as per SCCH-17 23 MVC No. 1731-2019 the evidence available on record the deceased was working as Secretary at Yenne Beeja Belagarara and also was doing agricultural work. As such, they are certainly dependents on each other. Accordingly, in this case the petitioner No.2 & 3 being a major sons are entitled for the compensation in accordance with their dependency. Accordingly, issue No.3 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE No.4
21. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Shivaram died on 06-01-2018 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584.
22. Now the quantum of compensation is to be decided. The petitioners have produced Aadhaar card and SSLC marks card of the deceased as per Ex.P12 and P.20. In the said document, the date of birth of the deceased is SCCH-17 24 MVC No. 1731-2019 shown as 25-09-1966. The accident took place on 06-01- 2018. Hence, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 52 years.
23. As stated in the petition deceased was working as Secretary at Yenne Beeja Belegaragara Sangha and was also doing agricultural work and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. To prove the said fact, the petitioners have produced Certificate issued by Yenne Beeja Belegaragara Sangha, Ex.P.10 - LIC Agent Commission certificate and Ex.P11 RTC's. As per Ex.P.9 the deceased was working as Secretary in Yenne Beeja Belegaragara Sahakara Sangha. The Ex.P.10 is also LIC Agent Commission certificate. But these two documents failed to establish the exact income of the deceased. As per Ex.P14 the petitioner was getting Rs.4,000/- per month as salary. No account statement of the deceased is SCCH-17 25 MVC No. 1731-2019 produced. In the absence of the evidence the notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.12,500/- as the accident is of the year 2018.
24. As per Sarala varma case the proper multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 11. Since the deceased left his wife and children, it is considered that, there are three dependents of deceased, hence 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, then the total loss of dependency would be (Rs.12,500/- X 12 X 11 = Rs.16,50,000/- minus 1/3rd (Rs.5,50,000/-) = Rs.11,00,000/-.
25. In Civil Special leave petition (Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "While determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a SCCH-17 26 MVC No. 1731-2019 fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
26. In another reported decision in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2021 in between Kirti and Another , V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as follows;
"When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation SCCH-17 27 MVC No. 1731-2019 would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth nothing that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income, as has been highlighted by my learned brother, Surya Kant, J., in his opinion (Hem Raj V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654: Sunita Tokas V. New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 688)".
27. As per the above decisions 10% out of loss of dependency has to be granted towards future prospects which would Rs.1,10,000/-.
28. The Petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased Shivaram. The petitioners are the wife and SCCH-17 28 MVC No. 1731-2019 children of the deceased and they lost their loving care taker. Therefore they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000/each. Rs.40,000/x 10% hike every three years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi Case) under the head of loss of consortium., Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses (this amount is calculated as per Pranaya Sethi case with enhanced rate at 10% after three years).
29. Medical Expenses: The petitioners also produced the medical bill at Ex.P.8 for Rs.2,000/-. The said bill is not disputed by the respondents and no grounds are made out to disbelieve the Ex.P.8 bill. Hence, petitioners are entitle for reimbursement of Rs.2,000/- under this head.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-17 29 MVC No. 1731-2019
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,00,000/-
2. Loss of future prospects Rs. 1,10,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,32,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Transport of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
6. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,000/-
Total Rs. 13,77,000/-
30. Liability:- The respondent No. 2 in its objection statement has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 and taken contention that the driver of the offending Road roller vehicle No.KA-41-P-9584 was not having valid licence at the time of accident.
31. Now that this court has ascertained the compensation amount, the last aspect of the matter is regarding fixation of liability i.e., who should be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner?SCCH-17 30 MVC No. 1731-2019
Precisely, it is the specific case of the respondent No.2 insurance company that owner has handed over the offending Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 to a person who has not having valid driving license.
32. To establish the said fact, the respondent No.2 initially relied on Ex.P2 charge sheet wherein Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act are invoked against the driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584. On perusal of the Ex.P2 the driver of the said offending Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41- P-9584 was not having valid licence at the time of accident to drive the said vehicle. The notice and reply under Sec.133 of IMV Act is not produced by both the parties.
33. The respondent No.1 being the owner of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 appeared and SCCH-17 31 MVC No. 1731-2019 examined himself as RW2 who produced the Ex.R5 driving licence of one Ujjwal Biswas who was the driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 at the time of accident. As per the said Ex.R.5 this said Ujjwal Biswas had the driving license to drive LMV non- transportation vehicles. As per Ex.R.3 copy of RC card of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 the unladen weight of the said offending vehicle is 10975 kgs. Thereby the evidence of respondent No.1- owner also failed to establish that the driver of Road Roller vehicle bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 had the driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident.
34. The learned counsel for respondent No.1- owner relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 - Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held has follows: SCCH-17 32 MVC No. 1731-2019
"60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight"
of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form''.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above quoted judgment has held that the light motor vehicle u/Sec.2(21) of MV Act includes a transport vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500Kg and also motor Car or Tractor or a Road roller "unladen SCCH-17 33 MVC No. 1731-2019 weight" of which does not exceed 7500Kg and in the same decision it is held that the Driver's licence given for LMV could be used for a Transport vehicle if "unladen weight" does not exceed 7500Kg. A person holding license for LMV-TR can drive a vehicle upto 7500kg unladen weight. In the light of the ratio laid down in the decision reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 3668[Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd and others], the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that as the driver of Road Roller bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 had the driving license of LMV even he can drive the road roller.
35. The said argument canvassed by the respondent No.1 cannot be acceptable because as per Ex.R.3 the unladen weight of Road Roller bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 SCCH-17 34 MVC No. 1731-2019 is 10975kgs. Thereby the above quoted judgment is not applicable to present case on hand.
36. It is successfully established before this tribunal that the driver of Road Roller bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 had no driving licence at the time of accident. Thereby the respondent No.2 insurance company discharged its burden by showing that the respondent No.1 violated the policy conditions.
37. There is no dispute that at the time of accident the vehicle was covered with insurance. But the violation of the condition of insurance policy is stands established. As per Ex.R7 it contains the condition that it covers the risk provided the person driving the vehicle holds an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding such licence. SCCH-17 35 MVC No. 1731-2019
38. The next aspect to be pondered upon now is, what is the effect if the rider of the offending vehicle not possessing a driving license at the time of accident.
In H.K. Shivaramu Vs. H.S.Shivaramum other rendered by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 4.12.2020 wherein in a similar set of facts the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held thus:
10. On the basis of the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record, i.e., Ex.P2 - charge sheet the Tribunal has rightly held that the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and fastened the liability on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - the rider and the owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
In view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of YELLAVVA (supra), even though there is violation of policy conditions, when it is not in dispute that as on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance policy, the insurance SCCH-17 36 MVC No. 1731-2019 company has to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same.
The essence of the said decision is that even where the driver of the offending vehicle was found to be driving without a valid driving license and the insurance company pleads that there is violation of policy conditions, if the vehicle had a valid and subsisting insurance policy, then the insurance company has to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from owner and rider.
39. In fact the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relied upon the decision of Hon'ble full bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs Yallavva reported in ILR 2020 Kar 2239 equivalent (2020) 2 KCCR 1405 wherein the Hon'ble High court has reaffirmed the SCCH-17 37 MVC No. 1731-2019 principles relating to pay and recover by relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 cited supra held thus:
34. On a reading of the same, it becomes clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down two tests. The breach of a policy condition, for example, by disqualification of the driver to hold a driving licence or invalid driving licence has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. In other words, in order to avoid the liability towards the 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 policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Thus, burden of proof of establishing breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle is on the Insurance Company. The above is the first test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Then, there is another test enunciated. Even after proving breach of a policy SCCH-17 38 MVC No. 1731-2019 condition regarding a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period on the part of the insured, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid his liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches is/are so "fundamental" as found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. This is having regard to the "rule of main purpose" or "main purpose rule" i.e., even if there is a proof of the driver of a motor vehicle not being duly licenced at the time of the accident, the said fact must be a cause for the accident. In other words, the breach was so fundamental as to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The doctrine of fundamental breach has been incorporated in Section 149 of the Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to give effect to the main purpose rule. Thus, the exclusion clause or the defence of an insurer so as to avoid liability has been read down to the extent to which it is inconsistent to the main purpose of the contract. The above is the second test to be applied. Thus, there has to be a finding of fact, as to, whether, the owner or the insured had taken reasonable care. Hence, the Tribunal will have to decide the dispute, as to, whether, the insurer has proved its defence. While adjudicating the said SCCH-17 39 MVC No. 1731-2019 claim if the Tribunal concludes that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with Section 149(2)
(a) of the Act, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party as per the award of the Tribunal having regard to the mandate of section 149(1) of the Act."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 cited supra has categorically held that 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. Further at para 110 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
SCCH-17 40 MVC No. 1731-2019
(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.
40. No doubt the respondent No.2 insurance company has proved that the driver of Road Roller bearing No.KA-41-P-9584 did not possess license, but the above decision makes it clear that the respondent No.2 SCCH-17 41 MVC No. 1731-2019 was required to prove that the insured was negligent or did not exercise reasonable care which is not proved. Thereby fortifying the view taken by this court that the respondent No.2 should make good the compensation amount to the petitioner and then proceed against the respondent No.1 i.e., the owner to recover the same.
41. For the foregoing reasons this court finds no hesitation in holding that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount to the petitioners with liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1 owner. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is held in the affirmative and it is held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. SCCH-17 42 MVC No. 1731-2019 ISSUE NO.4:-
42. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs. 13,77,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs seventy seven thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 - insurance
company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order and recover the same from the respondent No.1 - owner.
The petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 60:20:20.SCCH-17 43 MVC No. 1731-2019
Out of total compensation awarded to the Petitioner No.1, 50% shall be released in favour petitioner No.1 on her proper identification and remaining 25% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in her name.
Considering the quantum of amount awarded to petitioner No.2 and 3, it is ordered to release the entire amount in their favour.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of June, 2025).
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW.1 Nagamma SCCH-17 44 MVC No. 1731-2019 List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P3 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of PM report Ex.P5 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P6 True copy of Sketch Ex.P7 True copy of IMV report Ex.P8 Medical bill Ex.P9 Certificate issued by the Enne Beeja
Belegarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Ex.P10 LIC Agent commission certificate Ex.P11 5 RTC Ex.P12 SSLC Marks Card of deceased Ex.P13 Notarized copy of SSLC marks card of 2 nd petitioner Ex.P14 Salary certificate Ex.P.15 Study certificate of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.16 SSLC Marks Card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.19 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.3 Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW.1 N.G. Dharmappa
SCCH-17 45 MVC No. 1731-2019
RW.2 S.T. Ramesh
RW.3 Prashanth N.G.
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Notarized copy of RC
Ex.R2 True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R3 Letter dated 21.11.2024 along with copy of Driving
licence obtained under RTA
Ex.R4 True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R5 Letter dated 21.11.2024 along with copy of Driving
licence obtained under RTA
Ex.R6 Authorization letter
Ex.R7 True copy of insurance policy
XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& ACMM, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by KANCHI
KANCHI MAYANNA
GOUTAM
MAYANNA Date:
GOUTAM 2025.06.23
13:43:27
+0530