Smt. K. Lalita W/O K. Nagaraj Vs Uppara Ganesh S/O U. Hanumanthappa

UPPARA GANESH S/O U. HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER CUM DRIVER OF THE SMALL LUGGAGE AUTO TATA ACE BEARING REGN.NO.KA-34/A-8200, R/O: 7^TH WARD, NEAR DODDA MASJID, KUDUTHINI VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ & DIST-583115.

¶20

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, D.O. PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1046/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY

¶24

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 03.02.2017 passed in MVC No.1046 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Bellari, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶32

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶33

It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Nagaraj met with an accident on 29.03.2013 and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. The deceased was travelling in a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/A8200. The claimants being the legal representatives,

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

filed a claim petition seeking compensation, on account of the death of the sole bread earner in the family.

¶37

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate written statements denying the averments made by the claimants.

¶38

Respondent No.2 admitted the accident and the existence of a policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is contended that respondent No.1—owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

¶39

The claimants, to substantiate their case examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, examined one more witness as PW-2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

In rebuttal, respondent No.1 was examined as RW-1, the Regional Transport Officer was examined as RW2 and the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-3 and marked 7 documents as Ex.R-1 to R-7.

¶44

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and dismissed the claim petition against respondent No.2—Insurance Company. It is ordered that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of ₹5,46,088/- from respondent No.1 with interest at the 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶45

The claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on respondent No.1, filed this appeal.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for claimants and learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶50

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.2. He submits that if the Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent No.2 was not liable to pay the compensation, the Tribunal ought to have directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 INSC 867) (Civil Appeal No. 9538 of 2025 | Decided on July 17, 2025). He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the deceased was not working as a cleaner in the offending vehicle under respondent No.1 who is the owner and driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal was therefore justified in dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.2 and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶55

The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum.

¶56

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of Nagaraj in the road traffic accident. The claimants have contended that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent No.1. The Tribunal has placed reliance on Ex.R-6 i.e., statement recorded at the time of Inquest Mahazar, wherein one Raju has stated that the deceased was

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

not working as a Cleaner in the offending vehicle under respondent No.1. The deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger inside the vehicle, as such, there is violation of the Insurance policy condition. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.2—insurer.

¶60

However, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2, and admittedly, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased lost his life in the said accident.

¶61

The insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to satisfy the amount awarded by the Tribunal and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the premium was not paid by the owner of the vehicle towards the gratuitous passenger.

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita (supra) referred to another, earlier decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljeet Kaur reported in AIR 2004 SC 1340 and held that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, he lost his life. In such cases, the insurance company is directed to satisfy the amount awarded by the Court below and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, as the premium was not paid by the owner of the premium vehicle towards gratuitous passengers.

¶65

Admittedly, in the instant case, the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident and no premium was paid in respect of the gratuitous passenger. However, the insurance policy was in force, the insurance company is ordered to pay the

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

compensation amount and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶70

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants have contended that the deceased was working as a Cleaner in the offending vehicle and earning ₹6,000/- per month and ₹50/- batta per day, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at ₹5,000 per month. To substantiate the income asserted by the claimants, they have not produced any proof of income. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has to be taken. Admittedly, the accident is occurred in 2013 and as per the chart, the notional income to be taken is ₹7,000/-. In addition to it, 10% of the same has to be added towards future prospects. The net income comes to ₹7,700/- per month.

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

This Court reassessed the notional income of the

¶74

deceased at ₹7,700/- per month. There are three dependents of the deceased. Hence, 1/3^rd of the said income (₹2,567) is to be deducted out of ₹7,700/and the resultant income comes to ₹5,133/-. The deceased was aged about 51 years as of the date of the accident and the appropriate multiplier applicable to the said age is ‘11’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹6,77,556/- towards loss of dependency (₹5,133/- x ‘11’ x 12) .

¶75

In addition to it, the claimants are entitled to Loss of consortium in a sum of ₹1,44,000/- (₹48,000/- x 3) and the claimants are also entitled to a sum of ₹36,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate .

¶76

Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹8,57,556/- against ₹5,46,088/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants are

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶78

11 -

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

entitled to an enhanced compensation of

¶81

₹3,11,468/- .

¶82

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part .

¶85

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, is modified.

¶86

(iii) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹8,57,556/- against ₹5,46,088/- awarded by the Tribunal and hence, are entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹3,11,468/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation.

¶87

(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest as enhanced

¶88

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9813 MFA No. 102108 of 2017

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

hereinabove and as awarded by the Tribunal and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.

¶91

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶92

RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

Smt. K. Lalita W/O K. Nagaraj v. Uppara Ganesh S/O U. Hanumanthappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Lalita W/O K. Nagaraj v. Uppara Ganesh S/O U. Hanumanthappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sushavva W/O Siddappa Rendale Vs Smt. Nilavva W/O Dattu Patole

Sri.Col. S.M. Sreekhantha Vs Sri.S.M. Sundaresh

Smt. Mehaboobi, W/O. Rasool Jamadar, Vs Shri. Badasha Balu Jamadar

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Maruti Mahadev Bhatte

Shri. Dayanand S/O Balappa Thilare Vs Shri. Ilayi S/O Maliksab Mutnali

Maruti Mahadev Bhatte, Vs Babar Kutubuddin Baig