(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/S.173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to pleased to allow the appeal by modifying the judgment and award dated 14.03.2012 passed by MACT-XII, at Ballari, in MVC No.1307/2011 by enhancing the compensation and awarding a total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the appellant and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances in the interest of justice and equity.)

CAV Judgment

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Bellari ("the Tribunal" for short), in MVC No.1307/2011 dated 14.03.2012, the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.06.2011 deceased Diwakar along with his brother Mallikarjuna were proceeding in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/R- 3426, when they reached near bridge on Huchangidura road at about 2.00 p.m., one Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16/B-2562 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle from the opposite direction resulting which, Diwakar and his brother fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately the injured was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari, wherein he succumbed to the injuries.

3. It is contended that the petitioners spent ₹60,000/- towards transportation, funeral and other expenses and further contended that deceased is the only bread earner of their family. Accordingly they claim for compensation.

4. On filing of the petition notice has been issued to the respondents. Both the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their objections.

5. Respondent No.1 denied all the averments made in the claim petition. But he admits that he is the owner-cum- driver of the Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16/B- 2562 as on the date of alleged accident. But he contended that he was driving the vehicle very slowly and cautiously on the proper side of the road and when he was proceeding near bridge on Huchangidurga road, the motorcycle bearing No.KA- 35/R-3426 rode by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tata Ace vehicle. As a result, the motorcycle rider sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. He further contended that the policy was in force as on the alleged date and time of accident.

6. The 2nd respondent insurance company admits the policy which stands in the name of respondent No.1 for the period from 12.08.2010 to 11.08.2011 subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein. But contended that the respondent No.1 was holding a license to drive LMV non- transport from 21.06.2010 to 20.06.2030 issued by the Licensing Authority, Chitradurga, but he was not authorized to drive transport vehicle. Hence Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent No.2 further contended that respondent No.1 was not holding license to drive the goods vehicle. Accordingly insurance company contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of ₹6,42,500/- on different heads with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Sri Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that the driver has license to drive the light motor vehicle. It is contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, held that a person having a light motor vehicle can drive transport vehicle provided the weight of the vehicle less than 7500 kg. Hence the finding of the Tribunal deserves to be modified.

9. It is further contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning ₹20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at the rate of ₹4,500/- per month. Further the Tribunal has not considered the future prospectus of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal awarded meager sum of ₹5,000/- under the head of "funeral expenses" which is not proper and correct. Further the Tribunal has erred in awarding ₹25,000/- under the head of "loss of consortium" and ₹5,000/- under the head of "loss of estate". It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9% instead of 6% per annum. Accordingly he prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

10. Though notice has been served on respondent No.1 he has not chosen to appear before the Court.

11. Sri S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, accident occurred on 06.06.2011 at 02.00 p.m. near bridge on Huchangidurga road which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there was a collision between the motorcycle bearing No.KA-35/R-3426 and Tata Ace vehicle, bearing registration No.KA-16/B-2562. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died in an accident. A case has been registered as per Ex.P1 against the 1st respondent based on the complaint lodged by PW2 as per Ex.P2. The spot mahazar and inquest mahazar has been drawn which marked as Exs.P3 and P5. In this case charge sheet has been filed against the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC read with Section 187 of the MV Act.

12. Arguments heard.

13. Perused the materials available on record.

14. The points that would arise for consideration by this Court are as follows:

          (i) Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for enhancement of the compensation?

          (ii) Whether the petitioners prove that the Tribunal is erred in saddling the liability to pay the compensation on respondent No.1?

          (iii) What order?

15. The points framed for consideration by this Court are answered as follows:

Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative

Point No.(ii) : In the affirmative

Point No.(iii) : As per the final order for the following:

REASONS

16. Point No.(i) : Admittedly the accident occurred on 06.06.2011. Though the petitioner has taken up a contention that the deceased was an agriculturalist and earning ₹20,000/- per month no material documents produced before the Court. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at ₹4,500/- per month. Since no material documents produced to prove the income of the deceased, it has to be considered as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, as the accident occurred is of the year 2011, the notional income has taken at ₹6,000/- per month.

17. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects while awarding compensation under the head of "loss of dependency". This Court has taken judicial notice that the future prospects to be added to the income of the deceased keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 the deceased aged about 36 years and was a self employed, it would be just an appropriate to add 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects.

18. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th of income of the deceased towards personal expenses as he died leaving behind his wife, 3 children and parents, in all there are 6 dependents. The Tribunal also rightly taken correct multiplier as "15" as the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 36 years. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded under the head of "loss of dependency would be:

₹6,000/- + 40% X 12 X 15 - 1/4th = ₹11,34,000/-.

19. The Tribunal has awarded ₹10,000/- towards "funeral expenses", ₹5,000/- towards "loss of estate" and ₹20,000/- towards "loss of consortium" to petitioner No.1 which are also inadequate and deserved to be enhanced.

20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram and Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, which is again reiterated and followed by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Satinder Kaur and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 410, petitioner No.1 being the wife is entitled to ₹44,000/- towards "loss of spousal consortium", petitioner Nos.2 to 4 being the children are entitled ₹44,000/- each towards "loss of parental consortium" and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 being the parents of the deceased are entitled to ₹44,000/- each with 10% escalation. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at ₹2,64,000/-.

21. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to ₹16,500/- towards of "loss of estate" and ₹16,500/- towards "funeral expenses" with 10% escalation. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation on the following heads.

IMAGE

22. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to total compensation of ₹14,31,000/- as against ₹6,42,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly point No.(i) is answered partly in the affirmative.

23. Point No.(ii) : It is the contention of respondent No.2-Insurance Company that the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle was not holding license to drive the offending vehicle. It is contending that the 1st respondent was holding a driving licence to drive the LMV non-transport vehicle for the period from 21.06.2010 to 20.06.2013.

24. The RW1 deposed on behalf of the insurance company and produced the endorsement issued by the Licensing Authority to show that the driver was not having driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Ex.R1 is the insurance policy issued in the name of the 1st respondent in respect of the offending vehicle and it is a package policy which is valid. It is an undisputed fact that the 1st respondent is the RC owner of the vehicle and he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. According to respondent No.2- Insurance Company the vehicle does not have any valid permit and fitness to ply on public road.

25. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that respondent No.1 was holding a license to drive LMV non- transport vehicle and he was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle.

26. Driving licence has been defined in section 2(10) of the Act. The section is extracted hereunder:

          "2.(10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description;"

27. As per the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the Apex Court held as follows:

          "(i) "Light motor vehicle" as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

          (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller,"unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

          That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form."

          "16. ......... Prior to amendment in 1994 licence for transport vehicle was clearly covered as per section 10(2) in five categories, i.e., Section 10(2)(d) light motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(e) medium goods vehicle, Section 10(2)(f) medium passenger motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(g) heavy goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle. The licence for "light motor vehicle" has been provided in section 10(2)(d). The expression "transport vehicle" has been inserted by virtue of Amendment Act 54/1994 in section 10(2)(e) after deleting four categories or classes of vehicles, i.e. medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor vehicle. Earlier Section 10 did not contain the separate class of transport vehicles.

          17. The definition of "light motor vehicle" makes it clear that for a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kgs. "Gross vehicle weight'" has been defined in section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of "light motor vehicle" has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that "light motor vehicle" is also a "transport vehicle", the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a "transport vehicle" must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of "transport vehicle" category in section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of "gross vehicle weight" or "unladen weight" for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. "Medium goods vehicle" shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.

28. Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited V. Rambha Devi and others (2025 3 SCC 95) held as follows:

          "(1) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

          (2) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.

          (3) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'."

29. So, the contention of the Insurance Company that the driver has no authorization to drive the light transport vehicle cannot be accepted. So, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal saddling the liability on respondent No.1 (owner of the offending vehicle) alone to pay the compensation is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and respondent No.2 being the insurer of respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in affirmative.

30. Point No.(iii) : In view of the finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

          (i) The appeal is allowed in part.

          (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. Petitioners are entitled to receive compensation for ₹14,31,000 /- as against ₹6,42,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

          (iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization of the amount, except 1969 days delay in filing the appeal as per order dated 07.01.2026.

          (iv) Respondent No.1 is exonerating from liability to pay compensation and the same is shift on respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit entire compensation amount with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

          (v) Draw modified decree accordingly.