Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MRS K.S.MUDAGAL, MR C.M. POONACHA, JJ
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SMT.LALITHA W/O LATE SRINIVASAN AGED 28 YEARS – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9627/2017 (MV-D) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9628/2017 (MV-D) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1679/2018 (MV-D) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1681/2018 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA
SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR
For the Respondents: SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR
The court emphasized that the burden of proving defenses against compensation claims lies with the Insurer, and failure to substantiate claims of unauthorized passenger status or invalid driving license does not absolve liability.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Compensation for fatal accident - The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,79,000/- in MVC No.3200/2016 and Rs.13,35,000/- in MVC No.3201/2016, which were contested by the Insurer on grounds of negligence and liability - Tribunal found actionable negligence and determined compensation based on notional income, future prospects, and dependents' needs (Paras 9, 10, 23).
(B) Burden of proof - Liability of the Insurer to prove statutory defenses regarding employee status and driving license validity lies with it, not the claimants (Paras 19, 20, 22).
(C) Interest rate - Interest awarded at 8% deemed excessive, revised to 6% due to prompt adjudication (Para 23).
Facts of the case:
Accidental deaths of brothers Rajendran and Srinivasan while traveling in a lorry, claimants sought compensation based on loss of dependency. Insurer denied liability, alleging unauthorized passenger status.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal's findings of negligence were upheld, and overall compensation was recalibrated to Rs.22,43,900/- and Rs.20,04,500/- for respective cases, with interest at 6% per annum.
Issues: (i) Adequacy of compensation in MVC No.3200/2016; (ii) Adequacy in MVC No.3201/2016; (iii) Sustainability of Tribunal findings on Insurer's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: An Insurer must substantiate claims of policy violations; the absence of proof does not exonerate liability.
Result: Appeals partly allowed; enhanced compensation granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claims filed by dependents. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments raised by insurer and claimants. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's determination of liability and principles. (Para 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. quantum of compensation assessment and justification. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. burden of proof on the insurer regarding license. (Para 20 , 21 , 23) |
| 6. final award of compensation and interest determination. (Para 24) |
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. No. | M.F.A.No. | M.V.C.No. | Appellant |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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 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 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
