Karnataka High Court
Jayashree W/O Mohan Jadhav And Ors vs Boopathi S/O Santhappan And Ors on 10 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937
MFA No. 200973 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200973 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. JAYASHREE W/O MOHAN JADHAV,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. VISHWAJIT S/O MOHAN JADHAV,
AGE: 17 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
(APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR, HENCE M/G
APPELLANT NO.1 NATURAL MOTHER)
3. SHATRUGHANA @ CHATRAPATI
S/O SRIPATI JADHAV,
AGE: 73 YEARS,
Digitally signed OCC: COOLIE WORK,
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SUBADRABAI
W/O SHATRUGHANA @ CHATRAPATI JADHAV,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O DOBALE GALLI,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937
MFA No. 200973 of 2021
AND:
1. BOOPATHI S/O SANTHAPPAN,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK
NO.TN.28/AT-0430,
R/O 7/39, CHANDRASHEKARAPURAM,
RASIPURAM,
NAMAKKAL DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU STATE-637 408.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. VISHAKA D/O MOHAN JADHAV,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O DOBALE GALLI, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;
R1-SERVED;
V/O DTD. 05.12.2022, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.01.2021 PASSED BY THE
IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER,
MACT NO.XIII, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.1612/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937
MFA No. 200973 of 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.01.2021 passed in MVC No.1612/2016 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge and Member, MACT No.XIII, Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), the claimants approached this Court in appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of one Mohan.
3. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,21,606/- as compensation together with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the owner to deposit the same.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 05.06.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. on Tulajapur-Solapur road, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021 deceased Mohan was traveling on motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BD-2782. At that time, the driver of the truck bearing No.TN-28/AT-0430 came from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, causing injuries to deceased Mohan and while he was undergoing treatment at Ashwini Hospital, he died on 09.06.2016. The petitioners claiming that the accident was due to the negligence of the lorry driver, they being the dependents, claim compensation from the owner and insurer of the lorry.
5. On service of notice respondent No.1 did not appear and as such, placed Ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company appeared through its learned counsel and resisted the petition.
6. Respondent No.2 contended that as on the date of the accident the policy was valid, but the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license in force. As -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021 such, the terms and conditions of the policy are violated. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues. The petitioners examined two witnesses on their side as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked fifteen documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 in evidence. The official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW-1 and Ex.R-1 t Ex.R-8 were marked in evidence.
8. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that the petitioners are entered for Rs.12,21,606/- under the following heads:
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Towards Loss of dependency Rs.10,80,000/-
2. Towards Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
3. Towards Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
4. Towards Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Towards Medical Expenses Rs.66,505/-
Towards attendant charges,
6. Rs.5,000/-
nourishment food and diet
Total Rs.12,21,606/-
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937
MFA No. 200973 of 2021
9. However, it fastened the liability on respondent No.1 on the ground that the driving license of the lorry driver was not in force as on date of the accident.
10. Being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the fastening the liability on respondent No.1, the petitioners are before this Court in the appeal.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that it is not a case where the driver of the offending vehicle had no license, but on the other hand the driver had a valid driving license, which had expired and later the license was renewed. Therefore, it is submitted that the skill of the driver of the vehicle to drive the lorry was not in doubt or dispute, expiry of the license to drive and subsequent renewal of the license would indicate that the driver had the necessary skill to drive such a vehicle. Therefore, the conclusions reached -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021 by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on respondent No.1 are not justifiable.
12. His second prong of the arguments is that the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospects as under the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of the National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, he submits that the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not proper and correct.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that when the driver had no valid driving license as on the date of the accident, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. A driving license at the time of the accident is to be in force, to fasten the liability on the insurance company. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment is proper and correct. He also contented that the quantum of the compensation need not be interfered with. 1 (2017)16 SCC 680 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021
14. A perusal of the Tribunal records would indicate that the extract of the driving license of the driver is produced at EX.R-8. It would show that as on the date of the accident i.e., on 05.06.2016, the driver was not having a valid driving license. However, such driving license had expired on 03.03.2016 and later it was renewed on 03.03.2019. It is also relevant to note that the driver had a valid driving license to drive a transport vehicle from 24.01.2014 to 03.03.2016. Thereafter, such license was renewed with effect from 22.02.2019 to 03.03.2022. The various transactions history is shown in Ex. R-8. What can be made out from the perusal of Ex.R-8 is that even prior to 03.03.2016, driving license to various categories of vehicles expired, he was possessing the driving license to drive the transport vehicle with badge also. Subsequent to that, the license was renewed. Therefore, for a short period from 03.03.2016 to 22.02.2019, it appears that the petitioner was not having a valid license. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021
15. This Court must observe that a person driving a goods transport vehicle without such skill definitely amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, but on the other hand, a person who had the said skill, and license to that effect but it was expired and he did not renewed the same, cannot be considered a gross or fundamental violation of the policy condition. Definitely, the owner of the vehicle could have raised a contention that he had entrusted the vehicle to the driver by relying on the driving license which he had produced. Therefore, this Court felt that lending the vehicle in the hands of a person who was having the skill to drive such vehicle cannot be attributed to the owner.
16. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh2 and the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pappu vs. Vinodkumar Lamba3, it can be 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 3 (2018) 3 SCC 208
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021 safely be said that the owner of the vehicle had entrusted the vehicle to the driver by believing that he had a skill and there was valid the reason for the owner to believe such words, in view of the driving license which existed. Hence, it is a case where the fault cannot be found with the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the principles laid down in the case of Pappu, would come in play. In that view of the matter, Insurance Company has to be fastened with liability to pay the compensation initially, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
17. The next aspect to be considered by this Court is regarding the quantum of the compensation. The Tribunal while deciding the matter has not considered the future prospects and an appropriate notional income also. There is no evidence regarding the income of the deceased
18. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,750/- per month for the year
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021 2016. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is considered at Rs.8,750/-. Therefore, the loss of dependency has to be calculated with Notional Income of is as Rs.8,750/- per month and by adding 40% to the same. Hence, the effective multiplicand would be Rs.8,750/- + Rs.3,500/- =12,250/-. The deceased has left behind his family of 04 members. Therefore, the personal expenses would be ¼. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.12,250/- x 12 x 15 x ¾ = Rs.16,53,750/-.
19. In addition to the above compensation the petitioners are also entitled for sum of Rs.52,000/- under the head of consortium a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of funeral expenses. A sum of Rs.19,500/- towards loss of estate (by escalating 10% at every 3 years as held in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937 MFA No. 200973 of 2021 vs. Pranay Sethi4). In addition to that the petitioners are also entitled for the medical expenses of Rs.66,505/-.
20. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total enhanced compensation of Rs.5,89,649/- under the following heads :-
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded
No. by this Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,53,750/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.52,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.19,500/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
5. Medical Expenses Rs.66,505/-
Total Rs.18,11,255/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.12,21,606/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.5,89,649/-
21. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Therefore, the following;
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
4
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:937
MFA No. 200973 of 2021
II. The appellants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.5,89,649/-, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till the date of deposit.
III. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount and it is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1 - owner.
IV. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding apportionment, deposit etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE LG,TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76