Karnataka High Court
M/S Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Lalitha on 6 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
MFA No.9627/2017
C/W MFA No.9628/2017
MFA No.1679/2018
MFA No.1681/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9627/2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9628/2017 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1679/2018 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1681/2018 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO. 9627/2017
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA 1. SMT. R LAKSHMI
Location: W/O LATE N.RAJENDRAN
High Court of AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
Karnataka
2. KUM. R. NAVITHA
D/O LATE N.RAJENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
3. SRI NAVANI
S/O LATE N.RAJENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
R2 & R3 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.R.LAKSHMI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
MFA No.9627/2017
C/W MFA No.9628/2017
MFA No.1679/2018
MFA No.1681/2018
4. SMT.NARAYANAMMAL @ NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT NO.3-412/7
KATHRIPALLI, ALUR, PERANDAPALLI,
KRISHNAGIRI, TAMILNADU - 635 109.
5. SRI RAVI KUMAR M.
S/O MUNIYAPPA
NO.1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE,
ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:14.07.2023)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3200/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,79,000/- WITH INTEREST @
8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 9628/2017
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.LALITHA
W/O LATE N. SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
2. KUM. S. SATHYA @ BABY
D/O LATE N. SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
3. SRI. SATHISH BABU
S/O LATE N. SRINIVASAN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
MFA No.9627/2017
C/W MFA No.9628/2017
MFA No.1679/2018
MFA No.1681/2018
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT.LALITHA
4. SMT. NARAYANAMMAL @
NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.3-399,
KATHRIPALLI, ALUR,
PERANDAPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI
TAMIL NADU - 635 109
5. SRI. RAVI KUMAR M
S/O MUNIYAPPA
NO.1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE,
ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:14.07.2023)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3201/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.13,35,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 1679/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.LALITHA
W/O LATE SRINIVASAN @ SRINIVAS
AGED 28 YEARS
2. KUM. SATHYA S @ BABY S
D/O LATE SRINIVASAN @ SRINIVAS
AGED 15 YEARS
3. SATHISH BABU S
S/O LATE SRINIVASAN @ SRINIVAS
AGED 10 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
MFA No.9627/2017
C/W MFA No.9628/2017
MFA No.1679/2018
MFA No.1681/2018
APPELLANTS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
THE FIRST APPELLANT VIZ., SMT. LALITHA.
4. SMT. NARAYANAMMAL @ NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.3/399, KATHRIPALLI,
ALUR, PERANDAPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI,
TAMILNADU - 635 109 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
NO.28, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. RAVI KUMAR M
S/O MUNIYAPPA
MAJOR
NO.1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE,
ANEKAL, BENGALURU-560 007 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:06.03.2021)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3201/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 1681/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.R.LAKSHMI
W/O LATE N RAJENDRAN
AGED 24 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
MFA No.9627/2017
C/W MFA No.9628/2017
MFA No.1679/2018
MFA No.1681/2018
2. KUM R NAVITHA
D/O LATE N RAJENDRAN
AGED 8 YEARS
3. NAVANI
S/O LATE N RAJENDRAN
AGED 7 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN THE FIRST
APPELLANT VIZ., SMT R LAKSHMI
4. SMT NARAYANAMMAL @ NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE NEELAGIRIYAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.3-412/7, KATHRIPALLI,
ALUR, PERANDAPALLI, KRISHNAGIRI
TAMILNADU - 635 109 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING
NO.28, M G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. RAVI KUMAR M
S/O MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR
#1188/1170/2, ATTIBELE CIRCLE
ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 560 007 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:06.03.2021)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3200/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
MFA No.9627/2017
C/W MFA No.9628/2017
MFA No.1679/2018
MFA No.1681/2018
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
These appeals arise out of the common judgment and
award dated 07.10.2017 in MVC Nos.3200/2016 and
3201/2016 passed by MACT and Court of Small Causes Judge,
Bengaluru (SCCH 15).
2. For the purpose of convenience. the parties are
referred to according to their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. The particulars of the claim petitions and
corresponding appeals are as below:
Sl. M.F.A.No. M.V.C.No. Appellant
No.
1. 9627/2017 3200/2016 M/s. Reliance General
Insurance Co.Ltd
2. 1681/2018 3200/2016 Wife, children and
mother of deceased
Srinivasan
3 9628/2017 3201/2016 M/s. Reliance General
Insurance Co.Ltd.
4. 1679/2018 3201/2016 Wife, children and
mother of deceased
Srinivasan
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
4. Victims Rajendran and Srinivasan were full
brothers. On 27.02.2016 at 11.40 p.m. when they were
travelling in tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA 05 AD 6624
near Singasandra bus stop within the limits of Electronic City
Traffic Police Station, the lorry hit the road median, then
crossing road median hit car bearing No.KA-03 MP 7507 which
was coming from the opposite direction in the other lane and
ultimately toppled. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident
Rajendran and Srinivasan died on the spot. At the relevant
time respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the Insurer and registered
owner of lorry bearing registration No.KA-05 AD 6624
respectively.
5. Regarding the accident the driver-cum-owner of the
car bearing No.KA-03-MP-7507 filed complaint/Ex.P1(a) before
the Electronic City Traffic Police against the driver of the Tipper
lorry bearing No.KA 05 AD 6624. Based on the said complaint
Electronic City Police registered FIR against the driver of the
Tipper lorry and on investigation said police filed charge sheet
as per Ex.P5 against the driver of the lorry for the offences
punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304(A) and Sections
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
134(A) and (B) read with 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
6. Wife, children and mother of Rajendran filed MVC
No.3200/2016 and wife, children and mother of Srinivasan filed
MVC No.3201/2016 against the respondents claiming
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents alleging
that accident and consequential deaths of Rajendran and
Srinivasan occurred due to the actionable negligence on the
part of the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.KA 05 AD 6624.
Deceased Rajendran and Srinivasan were travelling in the said
lorry as cleaner/coolie and loader and were earning Rs.600 and
800 respectively. Claimants contended that they were
depending on the income of the deceased, due to their deaths
they have suffered damages and respondents are liable to pay
compensation for such damages.
7. Respondents contested the petition denying
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, age,
avocation and income of the deceased and their liability to pay
the compensation. Respondent No.1/the Insurer contended
that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective
driving licence and the deceased were traveling in the lorry as
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
unauthorized passengers, thereby there was breach of policy
conditions. Thus respondent No.1 contended that it is not
liable to indemnify the damages. Respondent No.2 contended
that the driver of the lorry was holding valid/effective driving
licence and insurance policy issued by the first respondent
covering the risk of the lorry was in force. Therefore, liability if
any is payable by respondent No.1.
8. In support of their claim claimant No.1 of the
respective petitions were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P25. Officer of the first respondent was
examined as RW.1 and on its behalf Exs.R1 and R2 were
marked.
9. Tribunal on hearing the parties and on appreciation
of the evidence held that the accident occurred due to
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of tipper lorry
bearing No.KA 05 AD 6624. Tribunal further held that
respondent No.1/Insurer failed to establish its defence
regarding breach of policy conditions etc. Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.14,79,000/- in MVC No.3200/2016 and
Rs.13,35,000/- in MVC No.3201/2016 and held that the same
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
shall be paid by respondent No.1/Insurer with interest at 8%
per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
10. Challenging the said award Insurer has preferred
MFA Nos.9627/2017 and 9628/2017. Questioning adequacy of
compensation awarded, claimants have preferred MFA
Nos.1679/2018 and 1681/2018 as aforesaid.
Submissions of Sri D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for
the Insurer:
11. The evidence on record clearly shows that
Rajendran and Srinivasan were brothers and they were
traveling in the lorry belonging to respondent No.2 which was
registered in Karnataka. That circumstance goes to show that
they were traveling as unauthorized passengers in the lorry and
they were not appointed by the second respondent as alleged.
Despite respondent No.2 contesting the petition, he did not
produce the driving licence of driver of the offending lorry.
Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him.
Tribunal without proper appreciation of the evidence
erroneously held that the first respondent has failed to prove its
defence. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to deceased
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
being the employees in the lorry in question and the driving
licence of the driver being valid, are erroneous and liable to be
set aside and Insurer has to be exonerated. There are no to
grounds enhance the quantum of compensation assessed by
the Tribunal. However, interest of 8% awarded by the Tribunal
is on the higher side.
Submissions of Sri K.V.Shyamaprasad, learned counsel
for the claimants:
12. The charge-sheet records clearly show that
deceased were traveling in the lorry as coolie and cleaner. To
rebut the said evidence respondent No.1 did not adduce any
evidence. Respondent No.2 does not dispute the relationship of
employer and employee. The Insurer did not prove its defence
that driver of the lorry was not holding effective driving licence
as on the date of the accident. Further RW.1 did not whisper
anything about the deceased being unauthorized passengers.
The Tribunal on judicious appreciation of the evidence has
rejected the claim of the Insurer regarding its liability. The
notional income assessed is on the lower side. Tribunal has
failed to award future prospects on income of the deceased.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
The compensation awarded on other heads also needs to be
enhanced.
13. In support of his submissions, he relied on the
following judgments:
i) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1
ii) Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram2
iii) Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3
iv) Rukmani and others vs. New India Assurance Co. & Ors4
14. Considering the submissions of both sides and on
examining the materials on record, the points that arise for
determination of the Court are:
(i) Whether compensation awarded in MVC
No.3200/2016 is just ?
(ii) Whether the compensation awarded in MVC
No.3201/2016 is just ?
(iii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurer
has failed to prove its defence is sustainable ?
ANALYSIS
15. The parties have not disputed that the lorry bearing
No.KA 05 AD 6624 and car bearing No.KA 03 MP 7507 were
involved in the accident. The finding of the Tribunal that the
AIR 2017 SC 5157
2018 (18) SCC 130
AIR 2009 SC 3104
(1998)9 SCC 160
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver
of the tipper lorry and claimants being the legal representatives
of deceased Rajendran and Srinivasan, is also not in dispute.
The dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation and
liability of the Insurer.
Reg: Quantum of compensation in MVC No.3200/2016.
16. Claimant Nos.1 to 3 in MVC No.3200/2016 are the
wife and children of deceased Rajendran. They claim that he
was aged 28 years, working as lorry cleaner and earning
Rs.600/- per day. In both cases, no proof of actual income of
the deceased was produced. The Tribunal notionally assessed
the income of Rajendran at Rs.8000/- per month, deducted
1/4th towards his personal expenses, based on Ex.P12/Aadhar
card considered his age as 30 years, applied 17 multiplier and
awarded compensation of Rs.12,24,000/- on the head of loss of
dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded Rs.14,79,000/- on
different heads as under:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 12,24,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 50,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of estate 80,000/-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
5. Transportation of dead body 25,000/-
and funeral expenses
Total 14,79,000/-
17. As per Ex.P12/Adhar card of the deceased his date
of birth was 10.01.1986. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in
considering his age as 30 years i.e., his completed age as on
the date of accident. Considering the wage rates and cost of
living during the year 2016 notional income of Rs.8,000/-
assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. On a very
reasonable assessment the Tribunal should have considered the
monthly income at Rs.9,500/-. In view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred to
supra having regard to the age and employment of the
deceased 40% has to be super added to his income by way of
future prospects. In view of the judgment in Sarla verma's
case referred to supra as in both the cases one-fourth had been
deducted towards his personal expenses and applicable
multiplier was 17. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pranay sethi and Magma general
Insurance cases referred to supra each of the claimants are
entitled to compensation of 40,000/- with escalation of 10% on
the heads of spousal, filial and parental consortium. In view of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's
case claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.15,000+15,000 on the head of loss of estate and funeral
expenses with escalation of 10% on each head. Therefore, just
compensation payable for the death of Rajendran is as follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 20,34,900/-
9500+3800=13300 X3/4 =
9975 X 12 X17
2. Loss of consortium 1,76,000/-
44000 X4
3. Loss of Estate 16,500/-
4. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
Total 22,43,900/-
Less awarded by Tribunal 14,79,000/-
Enhanced compensation 7,64,900/-
Reg. Quantum of compensation in MVC No.3201/2016.
18. In MVC No.3201/ 2016 the claimants contended
that the deceased Srinivasan was working as coolie in the lorry
and earning Rs.800/- per day. Similar to the case of Rajendran
there was no proof of actual income and in this case also
considering the age, occupation of the deceased, the cost of
living and prevailing wage rates during the relevant time
notional income has to be assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
As per Ex.P22/Voter ID card of deceased Srinivasan his age as
on 01.01.2006 was 28 years. Therefore, as rightly held by the
Tribunal as on the date of accident he was 38 years. Having
regard to the age of the deceased and his employment 40%
has to be super added to his income. In this case, the
deceased had 4 dependants. Therefore, 1/4th has to be
deducted for his personal expenses. Applicable multiplier is 15.
In this case also each of the claimants are entitled to
consortium of Rs.40,000/- with escalation of 10%,
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- on the head of funeral expenses with escalation of
10% on each head. Therefore just compensation payable in
this case is as follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 17,95,500/-
9500+3800=13300 X3/4 =
9975 X 12 X15
2. Loss of Consortium 1,76,000/-
44000 X4
3. Loss of Estate 16,500/-
4. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
Total 20,04,500/-
Less awarded by Tribunal 13,35,000/-
Enhanced compensation 6,69,500/-
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
Reg. liability of insurer.
19. Liability of the Insurer is disputed before this Court
on two grounds viz., that the deceased were unauthorized
passengers and not the employees of respondent No.2,
secondly the driver of the tipper lorry was not holding valid
licence as on the date of the accident. When the Insurer takes
a defence, it is settled law that burden of proving such defence
is on the Insurer. So far as the victims being the employees,
the said fact was not specifically disputed by respondent
No.2/employer. Neither he disputed that in the cross
examination of PWs.1 and 2 nor he entered the witness box to
deny the said fact. Charge sheet/Ex.P5 is relied on by both the
parties. In the charge sheet/Ex.P5 as well as inquest mahazars
of the victims it is stated that the victims were traveling in the
lorry as cleaner/loader. PWs.1 and 2 in their cross examination
denied the suggestion of counsel for the Insurer that the victim
were traveling in the lorry as unauthorized passengers. RW.1 in
his affidavit filed by way of chief examination did not whisper
that the victims were traveling in the lorry as unauthorized
passengers.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
20. So far as the driver of the lorry not holding effective
driving licence except bare denial on the part of the Insurer, no
evidence was adduced to prove the said defence. As against
that RW.1 in his chief examination itself stated that the driver
of the insured lorry was authorized to drive LMV(NT) from
01.04.2008 to 14.07.2027. He got renewed his driving licence
for the period 08.12.2016 to 07.12.2019 (TR). Even to prove
the said statement, no material was produced. In the
judgment in Rukmani's case referred to supra the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when the Insurer takes a defence of
driver not holding valid driving licence, the burden of proof lies
on the Insurer. In that case at least the inspector of Police who
investigated the criminal case was examined. Still Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if the Insurance company contends
that driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence, the
burden is on the Insurance company to establish such
contention and that the evidence of investigating officer is also
not sufficient and the evidence inspector of motor vehicle had
to be adduced to show that the driver was not having licence to
drive the vehicle.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
21. The coordinate bench of this Court in Legal
Manager, Iffico Tokio GIC Ltd., Bangalore vs. Smt.
Nagendram Lachi and others5 relying on several earlier
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the
judgment held that in order to avoid the liability to pay
compensation, it is the duty of the Insurance company to place
satisfactory evidence to prove that driver of the vehicle had no
valid licence or the licence said to have been possessed by him
is fake licence. It was further held that the Insurer must not
only establish available defences raised but must also establish
breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle or show that the
Insured has also contributed for the accident by allowing the
person not having valid licence or having a fake licence.
22. In the light of such principle, it is not open to the
Insurer to contend that the Court should draw an adverse
inference against claimants for failure of the insured to tender
his evidence. In the present case, charge sheet was not filed
against the driver of the lorry for driving lorry without holding a
driving licence or effective driving licence. Though the charge
sheet is not a conclusive proof, the same has a presumptive
ILR 2019 Kar 5361
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
value. The Insurer in the present case failed to rebut the
presumption under the said document. The Tribunal on
considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances rightly
held that the Insurer has failed to prove its defence and it has
to indemnify the damages caused to the claimants.
23. Tribunal did not offer any justification in awarding
interest at 8% per annum on the compensation. The claim
petitions were preferred in 2016. Without any delay petitions
were disposed of within a year of filing the same. In our
considered view, it would be just and proper to award interest
at 6% p.a. on the compensation amount.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals of the
Insurer as well as the claimants deserve to be allowed in part.
Hence the following:
ORDER
MFA Nos.9627/2017, 9628/2017, 1679/2018 &
1681/2018 are partly allowed. The impugned awards are
modified as follows:
I) The claimants in MVC No.3200/2016 are awarded
compensation of Rs.22,43,900/- and the claimants
in MVC No.3201/2016 are awarded compensation of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:225-DB
Rs.20,04,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
ii) Respondent No.1/Insurer shall deposit the aforesaid
compensation before the Tribunal on adjusting the
amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
iii) The award of the Tribunal with regard to
apportionment of the shares amongst the claimants
and investment is maintained.
iv) The amount in deposit, if any, and the TCRs shall
be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AKC
