Boya Vannakka W/O Late Boya Anjinappa Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Boya Vannakka W/O Late Boya Anjinappa Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; impugned judgment and award modified. Claimants granted enhanced compensation of Rs.3,85,992/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 declared jointly and severally liable; respondent No.3 (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited) directed to pay the entire compensation with accrued interest within 8 weeks; office directed to transmit trial court records forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3, the insurer of the offending auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-02/W-7132, is liable to pay compensation notwithstanding that the driver held only a light motor vehicle driving licence while driving the transport vehicle at the time of the accident. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent No.3 insurance company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to indemnify the owner and to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; the driver admittedly held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (transport), and per Mukund Dewangan and Jagdish Kumar Sood no further endorsement is required for driving a transport vehicle.

Ratio / Principle

There being no dispute on the occurrence of the accident and the death, the Court confirms the Tribunal's finding, founded on the charge sheet at Ex.P6, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw.

Key takeaways

The Tribunal overlooked the light-motor-vehicle licence ruling and committed an error in fastening liability only on the owner and driver of the offending auto-rickshaw; the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal require modification in this regard.ratio¶75
In the absence of any proof of the deceased's income, the notional income is to be assessed per the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines; the Tribunal's adoption of Rs.3,000/- per month was on the lower side.ratio¶80
The Court reassessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,250/- per month as per the KSLSA chart applicable to accidents of 2008.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No.100462 of 2014 (MV-I), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Ashok S. Kinagi J., 06.08.2025) - Enhancement of compensation for the death of Boya Anjineppa in a collision between two auto-rickshaws at Rayadurga on 05.05.2008. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.X, Ballari had awarded Rs.3,52,800/- with 6% interest jointly against the owner and driver, dismissing the claim against Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the plea that the driver, holding a light motor vehicle licence, drove a transport vehicle at the time of the accident. Applying Mukund Dewangan (2017) 14 SCC 663 and Jagdish Kumar Sood (2018) 3 SCC 697, the High Court held that a person possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle and no further endorsement is required; it found the Tribunal's exclusion of the insurer erroneous and made respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable, directing the insurer to pay the entire amount within eight weeks. On quantum, with no proof of income, notional income was fixed at Rs.4,250/- p.m. per the KSLSA chart for 2008 accidents; 10% future prospects were added per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; one-fourth was deducted for five dependents; multiplier '11' was applied; loss of dependency Rs.4,62,792/-; consortium Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 5); funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs.36,000/-; total Rs.7,38,792/-; enhancement of Rs.3,85,992/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100462 OF 2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BOYA VANNAKKA W/O LATE BOYA ANJINAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,

SRI. SHIVAIAH S/O LATE BOYA ANJINAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

SRI. BOMMAAIAH S/O LATE BOYA ANJINAPPA AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

ALL ARE R/O. KONTHAMPALLI VILLAGE, RAYADURGA TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HALAKUNDI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADV)

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:12:46 +0530

AND:

SRI. T.SRINIVASULU, S/O T. VANNUR SWAMY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF AUTO BEARING REG. NO. AP-02/W-7132, R/O. GODISELAPALLI VILLAGE, D. HIREHAL MANDALAM, RAYADURGA TALUK, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH.

SRI.B. VENKATESH S/O NAGANNA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF AUTO BEARING REG. NO. AP-02/W-7132, R/O. NO. 2-62, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, GOTKUR POST, KUDERU MANDALAM,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH.

THE MANAGER, M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAIN ROAD, PARVATHINAGAR, BALLARI.

JANAKAMMA D/O LATE BOYA ANJINAPPA AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KONTHAMPALLI VILLAGE, RAYADURGA TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HALAKUNDI VILLAGE TQ & DIST: BALLARI.

ROJA D/O LATE BOYA ANJINAPPA AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R R/O. KONTHAMPALLI VILLAGE, RAYADURGA TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HALAKUNDI VILLAGE TQ & DIST: BALLARI.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.08.2010, PASSED IN MVC NO.1093/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.X, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed by the claimants, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No. 1093 of 2008 vide judgment and award dated 20.08.2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-X, Ballari (for short, ‘ the Tribunal ’).

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The deceased Boya Anjineppa, and Nayakula Ramanna had been to Rayadurga for printing a wedding invitation cards on 05.05.2008, and while they were travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-02/W-8213 at Rayadurga, though the driver of the said auto-rickshaw was driving autorickshaw very slowly and cautiously. However, another auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP02/W-7132 came from the opposite direction at a high speed, and collided with the auto-rickshaw in which the deceased-Anjinappa, was travelling. As a result,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

Anjinappa sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the same.

A criminal case was registered in Crime No.44 of 2008 at Rayadurga Police Station. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming a compensation on the grounds that they lost the only bread earner in the family by the death of Boya Anjinappa. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed a statement of objections despite being granted sufficient opportunity.

Respondent No.3 filed a statement of objections admitting the fact that the Auto-rikshaw bearing registration No.AP-02/W-7132 was insured with their company, however denied its liability. It is contended that the driver of the Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-02/W-7132 did not possess a valid

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is a violation of the policy condition, as such, respondent No.3 has no liability to pay the compensation as claimed. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3.

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

The claimants, to prove the claim petition averments, examined claimant No.1, as PW-1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, the official of respondent No.3 was examined as RW-1, and no documents were marked.

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 20.08.2010. It is held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of ₹3,52,800/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

petition till its realization, and dismissed the claim petition against respondent No.3 on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving a transport vehicle at the time of accident, while possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only.

The claimants, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal challenging the liability and the quantum.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the claimants submit that the accident is of 2008, the tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the chart issued by the KSLSA, but on the contrary the tribunal has taken the income at Rs. 3000 which is on the lower side. He submits that the tribunal should have directed Respondent No. 1 – Respondent No. 3 jointly to pay

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

the compensation amount, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Jagdish Kumar Sood v. United India Insurance Company Ltd and Others reported in (2018) 3 SCC

697. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.

Per Contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3- Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is regarding the liability and the quantum of the compensation.

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased Boya Anjinappa. To establish that the death occurred due to rash negligent driving of the driver of the offending

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

vehicle, claimants have produced a copy of the charge sheet at Ex.P6. Considering Exhibit P6, the Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Auto-rickshaw.

Insofar as the liability: respondent No.3—insurer of the offending Auto-rikshaw bearing registration No.AP-02/W-7132 has taken the contention that the driver of the said Auto-rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The insurance company itself has produced a copy of the driving license of the offending vehicle’s driver, which discloses that the driver was possessing a light motor vehicle license as of the date of the accident.

To consider the case at hand, it is necessary to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

Company Limited - reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Kumar Sood v. United India Insurance Company Ltd and others, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 697 .

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Devangan and

Jagdish Kumar Sood's cases, held that a person possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle, and further, held that, no further endorsement in this regard is required in the Driving Licence to drive a Transport vehicle.

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the driver of the offending Auto-rickshaw was holding a driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, transport. Respondent No.3—the insurance company itself has produced a xerox copy of the driving license of the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

Respondent No.3 insurance company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The said aspect has been overlooked by the Tribunal and it committed an error in fastening the liability only on the owner and driver of the offending Auto-rickshaw. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal require modification in this regard.

REG. QUANTUM:

The deceased was aged about 55 years as of the date of the accident. He was working as an agriculturist and also a milk vendor, earning ₹60,000/- per month. However, to substantiate the said contention, the claimants have not produced any proof of income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income of the deceased, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

Services Authority. However, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at ₹3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side.

This Court has decided to reassess the notional income of the deceased and accordingly, the notional income of the deceased is taken as per the chart for the accident of 2008, at ₹4,250/-.

In addition, the future prospects of 10% (for the age group of 50-60 years) is to be added to the said amount in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , i.e., ₹4,250/-+ ₹425/- = ₹4,675/-.

There are 5 dependents of the deceased. Hence, 1/4th of the said income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e., ₹4,675/- - ₹1168.75 (4,675 x ¼) = ₹3,506.25, rounded off to ₹ 3,506 /-.

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

The deceased was aged about 55 years as of the date of the accident, and the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘11’. The claimants, are thus, entitled to

a compensation under the head of loss of dependency which comes to a sum of ₹4,62,792/-

i.e. [₹3,506 x 12 x ‘11’].

In addition, the claimants are entitled to a compensation under the heads of consortium, i.e. ₹48,000/- x 5 = ₹2,40,000/- and a sum of ₹36,000/- under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate .

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹7,38,792/as against ₹3,52,800/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹3,85,992/- .

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order.

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9958 MFA No. 100462 of 2014

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified.

(iii) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of ₹3,85,992/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realisation of the amount.

(iv) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

(v) Respondent No.3—Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(vi) The office is directed to transmit the trial court records, forthwith.

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

RK CT:BSB