Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. Shaila Arun Khaded

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2025MFA/20488/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against an MACT award of Rs.4,14,000/- with interest for the death of a motorcyclist in a collision with a tractor. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's findings on negligence or in its computation of quantum using income of Rs.36,000 p.a., deduction of one-third, and multiplier of 16, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the award.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Divisional Manager Vs Shaila Arun Khaded — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20488 OF 2013 (MV-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, “SITA SMRUTI”, 2^ND FLOOR, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. SHAILA ARUN KHADED AGE : 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : KURANI VILLAGE, TAL : HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶13

KUMAR ABHISHEK ARUN KHADED AGE : 8 YEARS, R/O: KURANI VILLAGE SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G NATURAL MOTHER

¶14

SMT. SHAILA ARUN KHADED.

¶15

Digitally signed MOHANKUMARB SHELAR byMOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2025.08.22 12:59:25 +0530

¶16

KUMARI SAROJINI ARUN KHADED AGE: 05 YEARS, R/O: KURANI VILLAGE, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G NATURAL MOTHER

¶17

SMT. SHAILA ARUN KHADED.

¶18

SMT. LAXMIBAI GURAPPA KHADED AGE : 80 YEARS, OCC : NIL, R/O : KURANI VILLAGE, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶19

MR. BHIMA RAMA METAGUDLI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HALI-GUDAGANATTI,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

POST: YAMAKANMARDI, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI (OWNER OF VEHICLE AP-21/W-5500

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRIYUTHS. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI AND ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVS FOR R1 & R4; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, R/BY R1 NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2741/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,14,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 25.10.2012 passed in MVC No.2741/2011 by the learned Fast Track Court-I and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this

¶36

appeal are as follows:

¶37

On 22.05.2011, Arun Gurappa Khaded was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/V-7348, accompanied by Basavaraj Khaded proceeding to Hanchinal village to bring a gas cylinder for a relative’s marriage. While they were on the motorcycle and came near the spot of the accident, a Mahindra tractor bearing No.AP-21/W-5500 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased Arun sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The petitioners spent more than Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral and other rituals. The deceased was about 40 years old at the time of the accident, and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, which he contributed to the family. Due to the death of Arun, the petitioners have suffered financial crises, and it is contended that they have lost the bread earner of the family. Hence, they filed a claim petition under Section

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest.

¶42

Respondent No.1/owner appeared through the counsel, but did not file a statement of objections. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that respondent No.1 has not complied with the statutory demand in terms of the M. V. Act. It is further contended that respondent No.2/Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

¶43

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

¶44

To substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to P.9. CConversely, an official from respondent No.2 was

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

examined as RW-1, and marked two documents as Ex.R.1 and R.2. After recording evidence and assessing the verbal

¶49

and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 25.10.2012 and held

¶50

that that the petitioners are equally entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. It is also held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of 30 days from the date of the award. Aggrieved by the

¶51

said Judgment, the Insurance Company has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶52

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the petitioner.

¶53

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

on the higher side and submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/V-3748 by the deceased himself. Therefore, he submits that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶58

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners supported the impugned Judgment, and

¶59

accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶60

Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶61

There is no dispute that the deceased Arun met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at spot. The petitioners produced a copy of FIR marked as Ex.P.1; Ex.P.2 is a copy of the complaint, and Ex.P.6 is a certified copy of the charge sheet, which discloses that a criminal case was

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

registered in Crime No.81/2011 against the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/V-3748 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. Further, R.W.1 admitted that the accident took place due to the involvement of two vehicles, i.e. a motorcycle and a tractor. The Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative. Hence, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1.

¶65

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly taken the annual income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3^rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 1/3^rd = 12,000/- and Rs.36,000 - 12,000). Considering the age of the deceased as 40 years, the Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘16’. Considering the evidence and materials placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the total compensation of Rs.4,14,000/-, which is just and proper. Hence, I do not find any error in the

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10200 MFA No. 20488 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

impugned Judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶70

following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The Appeal is dismissed.

¶73

(ii) The Judgment and award dated 25.10.2012 passed in MVC No.2741/2011 by the learned Fast Track Court-I and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi, is hereby confirmed.

¶74

(iii) Amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶75

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶76

RHR/CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

The Divisional Manager v. Shaila Arun Khaded

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Divisional Manager v. Shaila Arun Khaded

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Raghavendra S/O Honnappa Kannanayakar, Vs Smt. Honnamma W/O Hanamanthappa Kooler

The Divisional Manager, Vs Sri. Gouranna S/O Yallappa

The Divisional Manager Vs M Hanumanthappa S/O Murali

Allisab S/O Rajesab Shetsanadi Vs Imitiyaz S/O Mehaboobsab Dharwad

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs K Kallappa S/O. Devirappa

Harif @ Md.Hariff S/O. Haroon Basheer Vs Praveen Kumar G S/O. Sattanna