Geeta Vs Jagadish Basalingappa

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24887 OF 2013 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100132 OF 2014

¶5

IN MFA NO. 24887 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR HUBLI, REP THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, 2^ND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HUBLI R/BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADV)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. GEETA W/O. PRAKASH LAYADGUNDI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O. KHDC NEKAR COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 12:57:08 +0530

¶14

SHARADA D/O. PRAKASH LAYADGUNDI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O. KHDC NEKAR COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.

¶15

SRI. JAGADISH S/O. BASALINGAPPA BHUSANURMATH, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. SV WATER, OPP: SBI BANK, HOSU UNKAL ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADV FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29-06-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.346/2011 ON THE FILE OF I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,39,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

IN MFA No. 100132 OF 2014

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SMT. GEETA W/O PRAKASH LAYADGUNDI, AGED: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: K.H.D.C. NEKAR COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, TQ: HUBLI-580 024.

¶25

SHARADA D/O PRAKASH LAYADGUNDI AGED: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: K.H.D.C. NEKAR COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, TQ: HUBLI-580024.

¶26

…APPELLANTS

¶27

(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADV)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SRI. JAGADISH BASALINGAPPA BHUSANURMATH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCYLE, R/O: S.V. WATER, OPP. SBI BANK, HOSUR-UNAKAL ROAD, TQ: HUBLI-580024.

¶30

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBALLI.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29.06.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.346/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶41

MFA No.24887/2013 is filed under Section 173(1) of

¶42

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act” for short) by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the liability and the claimants have filed MFA No.100132/2014 seeking an enhancement of the compensation.

¶43

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶44

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:

¶45

On 12.12.2010, the deceased Maruti was proceeding

¶46

as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA25/EE-6150 from Hubballi towards Dandeli. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. When the said motorcycle crossed Alur cross, 6 k.m. towards Dandeli, the rider of the motorcycle lost control over the said motorcycle, and the vehicle went

¶47

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

off the road towards rights side, and fell into the right side

¶50

ditch. As a result, the deceased Maruti sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased Maruti, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking a compensation for the death of Maruti in a road traffic accident.

¶51

A notice was served on respondent No.1, however, he remained unrepresented, and was placed exparte.

¶52

Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a

¶53

statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle. Thus, there is a violation of the policy conditions. It is contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, as of the date of the accident. Hence,

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance

¶58

Company.

¶59

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶60

The petitioners, to substantiate their case, Claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the official of the respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. It is held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally, to pay the compensation amount, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with an accrued interest. The Insurance Company, and the

¶61

6 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

claimants, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.346/2011, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.

¶65

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶66

the Insurance Company, and the claimants.

¶67

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that three persons were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/EE-6150. The capacity of the motorcycle is only two. He submits that the rider of the motorcycle had violated the policy conditions. He submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the claimants. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶68

7 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶72

claimants submits that though three persons were proceeding on the motorcycle, and even though there is a violation of the policy conditions, as the motorcycle was insured with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the owner, and recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has not added the future prospects, and awarded a lesser compensation. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal filed by the claimants, and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶73

I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability, and the quantum of compensation.

¶74

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Admittedly, there is no dispute that the

¶77

deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/EE-6150 as a pillion rider. From the perusal of records, it discloses that three persons were proceeding on the motorcycle. The capacity of the motorcycle is only two. The insurance policy covers only a rider, and the pillion rider. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, there is a violation of the policy conditions, since three persons were proceeding on the motorcycle. Admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the motorcycle was insured with the Insurance Company. The Tribunal did not consider that there was a violation of the policy condition, and committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶78

Insofar as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the accident occurred in 2010. The claimants have not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, this court has taken the notional income at Rs.5,500/- p.m. as per

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the chart issued by the KSLSA. The deceased was aged about 19 years, as of the date of the accident. Hence, 40% of the future prospects is to be added to the notional income, i.e., Rs.5,500 + Rs.2,200 = Rs.7,700/-. The

¶83

deceased was a bachelor, therefore 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, it comes to Rs.3,850/- (Rs.7,700/2). The deceased was aged about 19 years, and the multiplier applied is ‘18’. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,31,600/- towards loss of dependency. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.48,000/- each, under the head of loss of consortium, which comes to Rs.96,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to a compensation of Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, which comes to Rs.36,000/-. The petitioners are entitled to a total compensation, which is as follows:

¶84

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

Compensation
Particulars amount in
(Rupees)
Loss of dependency 8,31,600/-
(Rs.3,850/-x 12x 18/50%)
Loss of consortium
96,000/-
(Rs.48,0000/- x 2)
Funeral expenses and loss of
36,000/-
Estate (Rs.18,000/- x 2)
Total 9,63,600

¶87

14. In view of the above discussion, the point

¶88

formulated is answered in the affirmative holding that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and that the claimants are entitled to an enhancement in compensation , and I proceed to pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. The Appeal in MFA No. 24887/ 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed.

¶91

ii. The liability fastened on the Insurance Company R2 is exonerated, and respondent No.1-owner of the motorcycle, is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9989 MFA No. 24887 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 100132 of 2014

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

iii. The Appeal in MFA No. 100132/2014 filed by the claimants is allowed in part.

¶96

iv. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified.

¶97

v. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,63,600/- as against Rs.5,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶98

vi. Respondent No.1-owner of the motorcycle is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. However, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount, and recover the same from respondent No.1-owner of the motorcycle.

¶99

vii. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶100