Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D.K. SINGH, VENKATESH NAIK T., JJ.
Servath Sulthana W/o Late Iqlas Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Gangadhar S/o Dogra Poojary – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4229 of 2017
Decided On : 06-08-2025
For the Appellant : Prakash M.H.
For the Respondent: H.S. Lingaraju
Insurer is obligated to pay compensation regardless of breach by the driver, and future earnings must be considered in calculating compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Enhancement of compensation - Appeal filed by claimants against the Tribunal’s award of compensation - Deceased died in an accident caused by a tipper lorry driver without a valid licence - Tribunal exonerated the insurer from liability; however, applicable law mandates insurer pay compensation and recover from the owner. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
(B) Compensation calculation - Future prospects must be considered; deceased was a permanent government employee with an established income - The Tribunal's calculations inadequate, total loss of dependency re-evaluated - Compensation awarded incrementally based on new calculations. (Paras 16, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
Accident leading to the death of Iqlas Ahamed while riding a scooter hit from behind by a tipper lorry.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order set aside regarding liability on the insurer, reinstated their obligation to pay.
Issues: The key questions are the liability determination under the law and adequacy of compensation given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling establishes that liability cannot be evaded despite breach of driving conditions and emphasizes future income projections in compensation calculations.
Result: Appeal allowed-in-part, compensation modified to Rs.28,50,000/- with stipulated interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the accident resulting in fatality. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding liability and compensation adequacy. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court observations on festival of liability rules. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. determination of future prospects and calculation of compensation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. outcome of appeal and modified compensation order. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before this Court for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1686/2013 whereby the Tribunal had granted a total compensation Rs.68,25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that, on 21.01.2013 at about 5.10 pm while Iqlas Ahamed (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') is the husband of 1st appellant, father of 2nd appellant and son of 3rd appellant, after finishing his duty at Mangalore Fisheries College, Yekkur, was proceeding towards his residence at Someshwara by riding his newly purchased Yamaha Ray Z Signus Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-19-EJ- 6379 at Kademogaru near Jeppinamogaru Dwara, then a Tata Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-19-B-6202 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, hit the above said scooter from backside. Due to the said impact, the rider of the scooter namely Iqlas Ahamed fell down on the road and the TATA tipper passed over him. Due to which he sustained fatal injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Indiana hospital, Mangalore. The doctors examined him and declared him dead due to fatal injuries sustained in the accident Post Mortem of deceased was conducted at Government Wenlock hospital, Mangalore.
5. Respondent No.1 - the owner remained absent.
6. Learned counsel Sri Prakash M.H for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle though there is no valid and effective driving licence furnished by the driver of the tipper and the principles 'pay and recovery' can be applied in this case. Secondly, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects. Since the deceased was working as an Associate Professor in Fisheries College at Yekkur, prior to the accident and he was a Government Servant and drawing salary of Rs.99,415/- per month, 15% of future prospects to be added. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under other conventional heads. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.
7. Learned counsel Sri H.S. LINGARAJU for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that, the Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the fact that the driver of Tipper was not having a valid and effective driving licence, has rightly exonerated and fastened the liability on the owner of the tipper lorry but however has granted a fair and just compensation under all other heads. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
8. We have perused the material available on record.
9. As the Insurance Company or the owner of lorry have not disputed the accident or the cause of death of the deceased, the points that would arise for our consideration in this appeal are:
i. Whether the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the tipper lorry?
ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
10. In the instant case, the Tribunal has observed that since the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, the Tribunal has considered that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
11. The Tribunal has also observed th
