Renukamma W/O. Late Mallikarjuna Vs M. Hanumatha Reddy S/O.M.Krishna Reddy

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

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. 20533 OF 2013 (MV-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O. LATE MALLIKARJUNA AGE: 22 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE

¶7

MINOR ASWINI, D/O. LATE MALLIKARJUNA

¶8

AGE: 2 YEARS

¶9

YELLAPPA S/O. MAREPPA AGE: 57 YEARS

¶10

SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O. YELLAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS

¶11

APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN & MOTHER SMT. RENUKAMMA

¶12

ALL ARE R/O. KARUR VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMARB SHELAR MOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2025.09.01 10:53:13 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI. Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV)

¶16

AND:

¶17

M. HANUMANTHA REDDY S/O. M.KRISHNA REDDY OWNER OF THE PADDY MACHINE CLASS CROP TIGER BEARING ENGINE NO.GRZ841209 AND MACHINE NO.07152672, KARUR VILLAGE, TQ. SIRUGAPPA.

¶18

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B SHARANABASAWA, ADV FOR R1, SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV FOR R2)

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03-08-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.857/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-II, BALLARI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIIN AS UNDER:

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

This Appeal is filed by the claimants, challenging the judgment of dismissal of the claim petition in M.V.C.No.857/2011 dated 03.08.2012 by the learned M.A.C.T.-II, Ballari.

¶30

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

¶31

On 06.12.2010, in the field of one Dyavappa, Karur village, when the deceased Mallikarjuna was cutting the grass in the field, the respondent No.1/driver of the paddy machine, i.e., Class crop Tiger bearing Engine No.GRZ 841209 and machine No.07152672 drove the machine with great speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

dashed against the deceased Mallikarjuna. As a result, the deceased Mallikarjuna sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimants, being the dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking the compensation for the untimely death of the deceased Mallikarjuna. It is contended that the deceased was the bread earner in the family, and due to the sudden death of the deceased Mallikarjuna, the claimants were suffering from mental agony, loss of love and affection, and accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶35

Summons were issued to the respondents. Despite service of summons, respondent No.1 was unrepresented, and placed exparte.

¶36

Respondent No.2/ owner filed a statement of objections admitting that he is the owner of the machine/vehicle involved in the accident, and stated that the machine was insured with respondent No.3, and the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

insurance was in force as of the date of the accident. It is denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

¶40

Respondent No.3-Insurance company filed a statement of objections contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., machine and for the fault of the driver of the machine, therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3.

¶41

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the

¶42

parties, framed the issues and additional issue.

¶43

The claimants, to substantiate their case, claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1, one witness as was examined PW-2, and marked 5 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5. On the other hand, respondent No.2 i.e., an official of

¶44

the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 03.08.2012. The claimants, aggrieved by the dismissal the claim petition, filed this appeal.

¶48

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

¶49

Learned counsel for claimants submits that the vehicle/machine involved in the accident falls within the definition of the ‘motor vehicle’ and to buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India

¶50

Insurance Company Limited vs. Purushothama and others¹ . Further, he submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in recording a finding that the vehicle involved in the accident does not fall within the definition

¶51

1 2003 (2) KCCR 885 (DB)

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

of ‘motor vehicle’. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Purushothama ’s case referred supra. He submits that the deceased was aged 22 years as of the date of accident. He submits that, though, the claimants have not produced any income proof, this Court can assess the notional income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. He further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi² , future prospects is to be added to the income of the deceased. Hence, he submits that the claimants are entitled to a compensation, and accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.

¶55

Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the offending vehicle i.e., machine involved in the accident do not fall within the definition of ‘motor vehicle’, and therefore, the Tribunal

¶56

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, he

¶60

prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶61

The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability, and quantum.

¶62

Regarding liability:

¶63

There is no dispute that the deceased Mallikarjuna met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. To establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimants have produced Ex.P-5 charge sheet. Ex.P-5 discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶64

Whether the crop harvesting machine falls

¶65

within the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ is a question to be decided in the instant appeal. However, the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the said

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

issue in the case of Purushothama referred supra wherein

¶70

the Division Bench of this court held as follows:

¶71

“3. It will be seen that the definition of 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' is a very comprehensive one and the definition includes a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads and in our considered view, though the harvester is normally put into operation in agricultural fields it is a self propelled vehicle which is required to move not only around in the fields but from area to area and having regard to these facts, it would be impossible to uphold the technical challenge that the vehicle in question was not a motor vehicle. Also, with regard to the argument that the field is not a public place what we need to point out is that once the vehicle has been insured by the Insurance Company unless there is a clause in the policy limiting the liability to the use of the vehicle in certain place and certain circumstances, which we do not find in this policy, it would not be permissible to argue that merely because the injury takes place at a place other than the conventional road, that the liability of the Insurance Company is exonerated. We take cognizance of the fact that it would be dangerous to narrow down the liabilities unless this has been done in the contract of insurance and in this view of the matter, we see no ground on which the order of the Tribunal can be called into

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

question on the basis of the contentions that are now been raised. Additionally, we are not willing to permit such a challenge principally because we find from the pleadings that these contentions were never taken up before the Tribunal and the respondents did not have notice of the same.

¶75

14. In view of the proposition of law laid down by

¶76

the Division Bench of this Court wherein a harvesting machine is also included in the definition of ‘motor vehicle’. The Tribunal did not consider the said aspect, and has committed an error in recording the finding that the offending vehicle i.e., machine do not fall within the definition of ‘motor vehicle’. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by

¶77

the Division Bench of this Court in Purushothama ’s case, referred supra. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3-insurance company, and respondent No.3-insurance company, is liable to indemnify the insured. Hence, respondents No.1 and 2 (the owner and

¶78

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

the Insurance Company) are jointly, and severally liable to

¶81

pay the compensation.

¶82

Regarding quantum of compensation:

¶83

The deceased Mallikarjuna was aged about 22

¶84

years as of the date of the accident. The claimants, to prove the income of the deceased, have not produced the proof of income. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income is to be assessed as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010. Hence, notional income is to be taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m. The deceased was aged 22 years, therefore, 40% future prospects is to be added to the notional income as per the proposition of law laid down by the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, the loss of dependency is worked out as follows:

¶85

Rs.5,500 + 2,200(40% of Rs.5,500/-) = 7,700/-

¶86

Rs.7,700 - 1,925 (1/4^th of Rs.7,700/-) = 5,775/-

¶87

Rs.5,775 x 12 x 18 = 12,47,400/-

¶88

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum

¶91

of Rs.48,000/- each i.e., Rs.1,92,000/- as there are four claimants, towards loss of consortium, and a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate, and a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶92

Thus, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,75,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶93

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

¶94

ORDER

¶95

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

¶96

(ii) The judgment and award dated 03.08.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.857/2011 by the M.A.C.T.II, Ballari is hereby set aside.

¶97

(iii) The claim petition is allowed. The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,75,400/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶98

12 -

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9988 MFA No. 20533 of 2013

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

(iv) Appellant No.1, 3 and 4 as entitled to a sum equal to 20% of the compensation, each. Appellant No.2 is entitled to a sum equal to 40% of the compensation amount.

¶102

(v) The compensation amount awarded to Appellant No.2 is to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till she attains the age of majority.

¶103

(vi) The Respondents- owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants .

¶104

(vii) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶105

SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶106

NAA

¶107

CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Renukamma W/O. Late Mallikarjuna v. M. Hanumatha Reddy S/O.M.Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renukamma W/O. Late Mallikarjuna v. M. Hanumatha Reddy S/O.M.Krishna Reddy

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

Boya Vannakka W/O Late Boya Anjinappa Vs T.Srinivasulu, S/O T. Vannur Swamy

S.M.Pakkeraiah S/O S.M. Rudraiah Vs Gram Panchayath, Toolahalli

Divisional Manager Vs Manchalamma W/O Late Ambrish

Geeta Vs Jagadish Basalingappa

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Vishaklakshi W/O Chandrashekar Yaradal

Maruti S Kakatikar Vs Smt.Prabhavati W/O Chandrakant Naik