Sri Ravichandran @ Ravishankar Vs Infants Travel Pvt. Ltd.

SRI RAVICHANDRAN @ RAVISHANKAR S/O RANGARAJ MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, CB ROAD, RAILWAY COLONY, NETAJI SLUM, PULAKESHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-46.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

INFANTS TRAVEL PVT. LTD., NO.8, SHIVANNA BUILDING, TAVAREKERE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶17

MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.36, II FLOOR, MINERVA CIRCLE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-27.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:17.11.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.958/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, &

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶23

XXXII ACMM, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-3), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

CAV JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VII Additional Judge & XXXII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in MVC No.958 of 2015.

¶27

The injured claimant, aged 37 years, met with an accident on 22.01.2015, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.1,28,505/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is observed by the Tribunal that respondent No.1, being the owner of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation and the claim against respondent No.2-insurance company is dismissed.

¶28

3 -

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶31

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶32

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that the Insurance company relied upon charge sheet and failed to discharge their burden by adducing any evidence and as such, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. R.W.2 being representative of the licensing authority admitted in the crossexamination that the driver who committed the accident is having driving licence to drive LMV vehicle and he is also eligible to drive the vehicle in question. It is contended that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwanth Singh case, the person who is having a valid DL to drive LMV can also drive the LMV transport vehicle and it does not amount to violation of the policy conditions. As there is no wilful violation of the conditions of the policy, insurance company cannot seek exoneration from liability as per the citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Scandia's case and Swaran Singh's

¶33

case , which is followed in Lal Singh's case in Civil Appeal No.3764 of 2017 dated 15.02.2007 and also the judgment of this Court in MFA No.5430 of 2012 dated 05.01.2017. It is further contended that the appellant sustained crush injury to

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶37

the right foot. He was inpatient for 32 days. The Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation and ought to have also granted reasonable amounts under the other heads. It resulted in 16% disability. He is suffering from deformity, pain and difficulty to stand and limping. He was admitted for several months and lost his earnings. The doctor stated that there is 16% limb disability and 8% disability to the whole body. As he was a bar vendor and a manual labourer, particular limb disability needs to be considered. Thus, requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶38

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

¶39

The manner of accident shows that On 22-01-2015 at about 11.30 a.m., while the petitioner was crossing the Railway Station Road towards Shivaji Nagar, near Bamboo Bazar, the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing Reg. No. KA-53-B-3253 came in rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations, dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner was

¶40

5 -

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶43

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶44

aged 37 years working as a Bar Bender cum Sheet centering work and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month.

¶45

Crime No.3 of 2015 is filed against the driver, and charge sheet is also filed against respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the RC owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. After issuance of the notice both of them appeared. Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying all the aspects and also stated the driver of the Tata Sumo was holding a valid driving licence and the policy was valid and thus, respondent No.2insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2-insurance company stated that there was policy as on the date of accident, but driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.1 had handed over the possession of the said vehicle to the driver and therefore, he has contravened the provisions of M.V. Act and Rules and that the Police have charge sheeted the said driver under section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of M.V. Act and it amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. As such, they are not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1.

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶49

The Tata Sumo is registered and insured as Maxi Cab and that

¶50

the driver who was driving the Maxi Cab was holding license to drive LMV-NT only. He should have authorization from the licensing authority to drive transport vehicle . Therefore, requested the court to dismiss the case against them.

¶51

The tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owner and insurer of of Tata Sumo. R.W.1 produced copy of the policy under Exhibit R1 and it was valid as on the date of accident. But, the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the non-transport vehicle. Moreover, he was charge sheeted under Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of M.V. Act. They also examined RTO officer as R.W.2, who stated as per Exhibit R6, Rakshith had no driving license to drive commercial vehicle or transport vehicle. Exhibit R4 is the RC extract, which shows that the vehicle involved is a transport vehicle. The documents under Exhibits R.3 to R.6 reveal that the driver is having driving licence to drive LMV and its validity (Non-Transport) 04-11-2034 and validity (Transport) Nil. Neither respondent No.1 nor his driver entered into the witness box. As such, the Tribunal relied upon

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶55

the judgment of this Court in the case of the Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Ruksana Begum @ Aashabee and others decided in MFA No. 21079 of 2009 and held that liability is only against the driver and owner of the vehicle, as there is no valid and effective driving licence. It was further held that owner of the vehicle entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not having valid and effective driving licence and he violated the terms of the policy. As such, the insurance company need not indemnify him and they are absolved from paying the liability. and accordingly, the case against respondent No.2-insurance company was dismissed.

¶56

However, the claimant contended that the insurance company has mainly relied upon charge sheet and not examined any other witnesses. Perusal of the record shows that the insurance company examined R.W.1 and R.W.2, and also marked exhibits R1 to R6 on their behalf. It is for the owner of the vehicle to enter into the witness box, but he failed to do so.

¶57

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon

¶58

Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance company

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶62

Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 . Whereas, the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that, in the said case, a direction was given to the State Government for amendment of the rules and as such, it is not applicable to the facts of this case. Even if the amendment is not made by the State Government to the said provisions of the Act, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the courts in India. Moreover, the decision of Mukund Dewangan’s case, supra, is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and others in C.A. No.841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024. Therefore, relying upon the said citation, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct the insurance company to deposit the amount.

¶63

Though petitioner has stated that he was working as a bar bender earning Rs.12,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2015, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month as per the chart

¶64

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶67

prepared buy the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Petitioner was aged 37 years and the relevant multiplier is 15. Petitioner sustained grievous injuries as per wound certificate under Exhibit P15, discharge summary under Exhibit P4 and also case sheet under Exhibit P19 and OPD cards under Exhibit P7. He also examined the doctor as PW2 and he stated that petitioner sustained crush injury of the right foot with RTA, PTRA and the injury is grievous in nature. He was referred to plastic surgery. He is unable to attend his work and lost his income. The doctor assessed the permanent physical disability of right lower limb by 16% and 8% to the whole body. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount one third of 16% as 5.3%. The Tribunal has rightly considered one third of 16% as 5%. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order of disability. So, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.81,000/-. (9000x12x15x5%).

¶68

Petitioner was admitted in the hospital for a period of from 32 days. Considering the nature of injuries, his occupation, the period of hospitalisation and other relevant

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶71

10 -

¶72

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶73

factors, it is just and reasonable to grant Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any work for a period of 4 months and therefore, Rs.36,000/- (9,000 x 4) is granted under the head loss income during laid up period. Tribunal already granted Rs.12,305/- for medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed.

¶74

Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the

¶75

compensation of Rs.2,39,305/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.1,28,505/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶76

The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal

¶77

is modified as under:

¶78

Heads	Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of future income	81,000/-
2. Medical expenses	12,305/-
3. Pain and Suffering	50,000/-
4. Loss of amenities	30,000/-
5. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
6. Loss of earning during the laid up period	36,000/-
Total	2,39,305/-

¶79

11 -

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:38177 MFA No. 2573 of 2017

¶82

CNR: KAHC010262932017

¶83

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶84

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶85

(ii) The Claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.2,39,305/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶86

((iii) Respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation within one month from the date of this order.

¶87

(iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it.

¶88

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶89

CS

¶90

CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri Ravichandran @ Ravishankar v. Infants Travel Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravichandran @ Ravishankar v. Infants Travel Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Vs Nandini

Legal Manager Vs Shantanakumar @ Girishantha

Shivashankar Chari Vs Smt.Nagarathna

Naitonal Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Master Shaik Suhail Ahmed

Smt. Sonali Punit Sanadi Vs Shri. Punit Sanadi

Mr. Venugopala. B. Vs Thejaswini. P