The court affirmed that insurance companies are liable to compensate dependants of an insured driver despite potential claims of negligence by the deceased.

(By Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.)

Claim Petition was filed by wife, two minor children, and mother of the deceased - Nagaraj, who died in a road accident, while driving a lorry bearing registration No.TN43 A4009 on 02.08.2015.

2. According to the claimants, the accident occurred when Nagaraj tried to negotiate the oncoming lorry from the opposite side, driven in a rash and negligent manner. To avoid hitting the lorry, he tried to move to the left, but it being a ghat road, the vehicle capsized, due to which Nagaraj came under the lorry and died. Stating that at the time of accident, Nagaraj was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as driver by profession and he was 44 years old, his wife, two minor children, and mother, who are dependants, had claimed a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs as compensation before the Tribunal.

3. Insurance company contested the claim on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased - Nagaraj. He being the tort-feasor, his dependants are not entitled for any compensation.

4. While the claimants relied on the evidence of one Mohanraj, eye-witness to the occurrence, Insurance company examined one of its officers as a defence witness.

5. The Tribunal, relying upon the claimants' side documents, namely, Exs.P-1 to P-20 and the copy of the policy marked as Ex.R-1, awarded a sum of Rs.19,77,400/- towards compensation as under :

6. Challenging the liability as well as the quantum, the Insurance company has preferred C.M.A.No.3596 of 2019, whereas the claimants have filed C.M.A.No.3221 of 2019, seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the Tribunal failed to apply proper multiplier and also failed to fix the loss of earning of the deceased appropriately. Being a driver by profession, accident occurred in the course of employment as driver; insurance for the vehicle covers the driver also by payment of additional premium; option to file motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act is vested with the claimants. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced.

7. Learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that the evidence would clearly show that the deceased - Nagaraj was the tort- feasor; the F.I.R. as well as the Final Report, which form part of the evidence as Exs.P-1 and P-6, would go to show that the lorry got capsized due to negligence of Nagaraj and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the dependants of the tort-feasor.

8. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in G.Nagarathna v. G.Manjunatha in M.F.A.No.2850/2017 (Mv-D), dated 23.11.2024, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an S.L.P., in which the Karnataka High Court, considering the facts of the case, held that when admittedly the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being the tort-feasor, the legal heirs cannot be paid any compensation for his death, otherwise, it would amount to a person, who committed breach, getting compensation for his own wrong.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in C.M.A.No.3221 of 2019 would submit that the deceased Nagaraj was not a tort-feasor, as contended by the learned coun