Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 531 (KAR)

Shaanabasappa v. Anand

2022-04-13

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. MFA No.100211/2021 and MFA No.100212/2021 are by the owners of the vehicle challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal insofar as it saddles liability on them. MFA Crob. No.100060/2021 in MFA No.100211/2021 is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The fact that an accident occurred on 15/2/2019 resulting in the death of Jyothi and her daughter Kumari Pranamya @ Pratiksha is not in dispute . 3. The deceased-Jyoti and Pranamya were riding pillion in a motorcycle which was being driven by Anand Mali, the husband of deceased-Jyoti and the father of Kumari Pranamya. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for a compensation of Rs.14, 42, 936.00 (In MVC.No.119/2019 i.e., MFA.No.100211/2021) and Rs.5, 40, 000.00 (in MVC.No.120/2019 i.e., MFA.No.100212/2021). 4. In respect of liability, the Tribunal took the view that the driver of the tipper with which the motorcycle had collided did not possess a valid and effective driving license and therefore the owner of the Tipper would be liable. The Tribunal noticed that the license of the driver of the Tipper had expired on 20/1/2018 and the accident had occurred on 15/2/2019 and thereafter on 16/2/2019 the driving license had been renewed and therefore the Insurance Company could not be made liable. 5. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the driving license did expire on 20/1/2018. Ex.R.6, the details of the license holder Veerayya S. Naganur indicates that on 6/9/2018 he had filed an application seeking for renewal of his driving license and he had also uploaded his documents, photograph and signature and had also made payment of fee for renewal. Ex.R.6 indicates that the R.T.O. had completed the process of capturing the photo on 21/12/2018, conducted the scrutiny of the application on 4/2/2019 and had thereafter approved the endorsement on driving license on 16/2/2019 and ultimately printed the driving licence on 18/2/2019. 6. It is therefore clear that the driver of the Truck had applied for renewal and had remitted the necessary fee much prior to the accident. If the licensing authority had consumed certain time for scrutinizing the application and granting the renewal, it cannot be said that there was no valid or effective driving license in favour of the rider of the Tipper. If the licensing authority had consumed certain time for scrutinizing the application and granting the renewal, it cannot be said that there was no valid or effective driving license in favour of the rider of the Tipper. The fact of the matter is ultimately that an application for renewal was made much before the accident in question and necessary fee was also paid much before the accident. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.103680/2015 which was decided on 8/2/2019 has held that mere expiry of the license would not absolve the Insurance Company from its liability. This Court has also held that the non-renewal of a license could not be equated to a case of non possession of license or a case where the driver was disqualified from driving license. The Division Bench has in the said decision also relied upon by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.G.Srinivasamurthy Vs. Habib Khathun, reported in 2002 ACJ 557 , which states that when the application for renewal is made within one year of the expiry, the licensing authority had no power to refuse renewal of the license and therefore the expiry of the driving license would be of no consequence is an application for renewal was made within a year of the expiry. 8. In the instant case, admittedly, an application for renewal of the driving license was made on 6/9/2018 i.e., 08 months after the expiry of the license and about 5 months before the accident had occurred. This application filed for renewal was pending consideration till 16/2/2019. As held by the Division Bench in the case of K.G.Srinivasamurthy (supra), obviously, the licensing authority could not have been refused the renewal and merely because the licensing authority took its own time to renew the license that does not mean that the petitioner did not possess a valid and effective driving license I am therefore of the view that the exoneration of the liability of the Insurance Company on the ground that the driving license had expired cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. 9. As regards the enhancement of the compensation, that has been sought for in MFA.CROB.No.100060/2021, the Tribunal has awarded the following sums. 10. The income of the deceased has been determined by the Tribunal at Rs.7, 000.00 per month as there was no documentary evidence. 9. As regards the enhancement of the compensation, that has been sought for in MFA.CROB.No.100060/2021, the Tribunal has awarded the following sums. 10. The income of the deceased has been determined by the Tribunal at Rs.7, 000.00 per month as there was no documentary evidence. In such cases, it would be appropriate to adopt the monthly income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which for the year 2019, would be sum of Rs.13, 250.00. 11. To the said sum, 40% would have to be added towards future prospects, which results in the monthly income to become Rs.18, 550.00. Out of the said sum, 1/3rd would have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, for the purpose of reckoning compensation the monthly income would be Rs.12, 367.00. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of (Rs.12, 367.00 X 12 X 17=) Rs.25, 22, 868.00. 12. The claimants being the husband and minor son, each of them would be entitled to Rs.44, 000.00 towards loss of consortium apart from the sum of Rs.33, 000.00 awarded under the conventional heads. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.26, 43, 868.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, as against Rs.14, 42, 936.00 awarded by the Tribunal. 13. As a consequence, the appeals filed by the owners in MFA.No.100211/2021 and MFA.No.100212/2021 are allowed and it is hereby held that the insurer i.e., respondent No.3 in MFA.No.100211/2021 and the 2nd respondent in MFA.No.100212/2021 are liable to satisfy the compensation awarded. MFA.CROB.No.100060/2021 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The amount deposited by the owner i.e., appellant in MFA.Nos.100211 and 100212 of 2021 shall be refunded to the owner-appellant.