United India Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant-insurer; the Tribunal's award stands and the appeal is dismissed, with the amount in deposit, if any, to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, given the appellant's contention that the claimants, being major sons of the deceased (aged 58 at the time of the accident), were not dependants and could claim only under the head 'loss to estate'. +1 more

Court's answer

The quantum ground fails: the compensation determined by the Tribunal was left undisturbed and the appeal on this count is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The ground regarding absence of a 'transport' endorsement on the driver's LMV (non-transport) licence, for driving an LMV (transport) vehicle, is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663; consequently this ground of the appeal also fails.

Key takeaways

The amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S.173(1) — Insurer's miscellaneous first appeal against quantum of compensation — Award dated 23.09.2015 by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in MVC No.174/2012 arising from an accident of 21.05.2012 — Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) on quantum, the claimants being major sons of the deceased (aged 58), the insurer contended they were entitled only under 'loss to estate'; even on that footing, taking notional income of Rs.6,500/- per the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority chart and deducting half, the figure approximates four lakh rupees, so the Tribunal's determination was not interfered with; (ii) on licensing, absence of a 'transport' endorsement on the driver's LMV (non-transport) licence for driving an LMV (transport) vehicle is squarely covered by Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 — Appeal dismissed; amount in deposit, if any, to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100052 OF 2016 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGER, DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, BRANCH OFFICE, TONTADARYA VIDYA PEETH BUILDING, ROTARY CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD, GADAG, REPRESEBTED BY ITS MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ANKOLA ARCADE, 1^ST FLOOR, OPP. KALABHAVAN, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI SHARNAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA GADAG @ GADAGIN, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S.,

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O CHANNABASAPPA GADAG @ GADAGIN, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREHANDIGOL, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG.

SRI. MOHAN S/O CHANNABASAPPA GADAG @ GADAGIN, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREHANDIGOL, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG.

GURUNATH S/O SHIVAPPA KALAKANNAVAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HULKOTI, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016

HC-KAR

BASALINGAPPA S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: VAKKALGERI ONI, NEAR RACHOTESHWAR TEMPLE, GADAG.

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MULAGUND ROAD, GADAG.

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, GADAG.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI F.R.GALAGANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R5 AND R6 – NOTICE SERVED; APPEAL AGAINST R4 IS DISMISSED AS ON 01.04.2019.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2015, PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.174/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADAG AND ETC.,.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 23.09.2015, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in MVC No.174/2012, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded as it is on higher side.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016

HC-KAR

Heard the arguments of learned counsels

appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed before the Court.

It is submission of learned counsel for appellant

that the claimants are major sons, hence they are not dependants on the deceased who was aged 58 years old at the time of accident. Hence, awarding compensation under

the head loss of dependency would not arise. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for loss to estate only. Considering the claimants are major sons and deceased was 58 years old, though the claimants are not entitled for

compensation under the head loss of dependency, but considering that the accident occurred on 21.05.2012, and notional income was Rs.6,500/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, and if half of the amount is deducted for the purpose of quantification of compensation under the head loss to estate, then the amount would be coming around four lakh rupees. Therefore, the quantum of compensation determined b the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016

HC-KAR

tribunal is found to be just and proper, which needs no interference.

The another ground urged is that in the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle there is no endorsement of ‘transport’. The vehicle is LMV (transport) and the driver was holding driving licence LMV (non transport) and this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663.

Therefore, on both these counts the appeal filed

by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the tribunal.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

JUDGE

MRK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36