This court allowed two motor accident appeals partially. It held that the insurance company is liable despite the driver lacking a license but can recover from the owner. Compensation was enhanced to Rs. 11,37,200/-.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,37,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. awarded to petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.11405 OF 2011 (MV) C/W MFA CROB. NO.67 OF 2015
IN MFA NO.11405 OF 2011
BETWEEN :
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.89, SVR COMPLEX HOSUR ROAD, MADIWALA BANGALORE – 560 068
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. MANJUNATH, ADV.)
AND :
2
ALL ARE R/O KATISAHI VILLAGE BAUNSADIHA TOWN, BHOGRAI POLICE STATION, BALASORE DISTRICT, ORISSA STATE
SINCE RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MINATI MAHJI
(BY SRI. C.PUTTASWAMY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2015 APPEAL AGAINST R6 STANDS DISMISSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC 7937/2009 ON THE FILE OF XVI ADDITIONAL, JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,27,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6%P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
IN MFA CROB. NO.67 OF 2015
BETWEEN :
3
| 2. MAS. PINTO MAJHI S/O LATE SURESH MAJHI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS |
|---|
| 3. KUM. SUMI MAJHI D/O LATE SURESH MAJHI AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS |
| 4. MAS. RINTU S/O LATE SURESH MAJHI AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS |
| 5. SMT. BANQBIHARIMAJHI W/O LATE SANYASI MAJHI AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS |
| SINCE 2, 3 & 4 OBJECTORS ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MINATI MAJHI |
| ALL ARE R/O KATISAHI VILLAGE BAUNSADIHA TOWN, BHOGRAJ POLICE STATION, BALSORE DISTRICT, ORISSA STATE … CROSS OBJECTORS |
| (BY SRI.PUTTASWAMY C., ADVOCATE) AND : |
4
SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR ROAD MADIWALA, BANGALORE – 560 055 REP. BY ITS MANAGER
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D. MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41, RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7937/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPESNATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA AND MFA CROB. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.12.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.7937/2009 by the XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company therein has preferred M.F.A.No.11405/2011 and the petitioners therein have preferred M.F.A.Crob.No.67/2015
referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.
5
at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased Suresh Mahji was walking on the side of B.M.Road, near Omkar Dabha, Kaniminke village, Bidadi Hobli, Bengaluru. At that time, a Scorpio Car bearing Reg.No.KL-11-V-9021 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said Suresh Mahji and consequently, he expired. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was duly insured. Hence petitioners preferred MVC No.7937/2009 and claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
6
PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.12. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company has examined three witnesses and got marked Ex.R.1 to R.7.
though the offending Car was duly insured with it, it was being driven by one Joseph, who did not posses valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and has contended that it is not liable to pay the compensation and hence, being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, it has preferred M.F.A.No.11405/2011 and the petitioners not satisfied by the quantum of compensation, have preferred M.F.A.Crob.No.67/2015.
7
8
the Insurance Company that respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle has tried to screen the actual driver and depicted one Y.Ramesh as the driver of the offending vehicle as the said Y.Ramesh had valid and effective driving licence and the person who caused the accident did not have a valid driving licence.
9
Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another reported in AIR
2018 SC 592 , once the vehicle is duly insured and it is involved in an accident even though driven by a person without valid driving licence, Insurance Company becomes liable. However, they can recover the amounts from the owner of the vehicle.
accident happened in the year 2008. The income of the deceased is established at Rs.4,500/- per month. Based upon the evidence adduced by the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident. As per the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income needs to
10
be added towards future prospects. Given the age of the deceased, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C [2009(6) SCC 121] , a multiplier of 16 is applicable. Further, the deceased has five dependants and hence, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners are together entitled to a sum of Rs.9,07,200/- (4,500 +40% x 12 x 16 x ¾).
11
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is liable to compensate the petitioners and it is entitled to recover the same from the respondent No.1 – owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the following:-
ORDER
i) M.F.A.No.11405/2011 and M.F.A.
Crob.No.67/2015 are partly allowed.
ii) The petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.11,37,200/as compensation as against Rs.6,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
12
vi)Trial Court records should be sent back forthwith.
vii) No order to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
MH/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an insurance company is absolved from liability if the vehicle was driven by a person without a valid driving license.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and if enhancement is required.
Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and its right to recover the same from the vehicle owner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and anotherApplied¶60
AIR 2018 SC 592 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay SethiApplied¶65
National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
Sarla Verma vs. D.T.CApplied¶65
Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C [2009(6) SCC 121] · Who else cites this
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. SomwatiApplied¶67
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SMT. MINATI MAJHI
PINTO MAJHI
SUMI MAJHI
RINTUI
SMT. BANQBIHARI MAJHI
M. I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
