Dismissed¶71

The Divisional Manager v. Smt Swapna R

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2025MFA/5217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (DB, NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB) rejects insurer's MFA No. 5217 of 2025 (MV-D) under S.173(1) MV Act against award dated 28.01.2025 in MVC No. 307/2021 (I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT-V, Davanagere) of Rs.22,46,320/- plus 6% interest to parents of deceased two-wheeler rider; nexus between accident injuries and death upheld despite death four months later; rider's want of licence held no defence against insurer; notional income per Lok Adalat chart sustained; driver charge-sheeted under Sections 279 and 338 IPC; appeal dismissed, statutory deposit to be disbursed to claimants.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-insurer; the Tribunal's award of Rs.22,46,320/- with interest at 6% p.a. stands, and the statutory deposit made by the appellant is to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Swapna R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the nexus between the demise of the deceased and the injury suffered in the accident is established, given that the deceased died four months after the accident. +2 more

¶50

Court's answer

The fact that the deceased suffered injuries requiring hospitalization and was completely bedridden even when discharged defeats the appellant's contention that there is no nexus between the injuries suffered in the accident and his death.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

Where the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the goods vehicle insured with the appellant and there is nothing on record to show the deceased contributed to the accident, the deceased's not holding a driving licence cannot by itself be a reason to hold that the insurer can deflect its liability.

¶63

Key takeaways

The notional income adopted by the Tribunal as per the chart evolved for settlement in Lok Adalat is taken to ensure consistency and uniformity where there is no proof of actual income; accordingly, there is no justification for interference with the loss-of-dependency computation on any of the appellant's grounds.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles insurance appeal (MFA under S.173(1) MV Act) by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. against a Davanagere MACT award of Rs.22,46,320/- with 6% interest to the parents of Sri Rangaswamy, who after the 11.03.2020 collision with a Tata Ace goods vehicle insured by the appellant was hospitalized for 65 days (45 in ICU), discharged completely bedridden, and died on 04.07.2020. Oral judgment per B M Shyam Prasad J (D K Singh J concurring in Coram) rejected the appeal, holding: (i) the injuries requiring hospitalization and the completely bedridden condition at discharge establish the nexus between the accident injuries and the death notwithstanding the four-month interval; (ii) the deceased's lack of a driving licence cannot enable the insurer to deflect liability where the negligence lay with the driver of the insured goods vehicle and no contributory negligence is shown; and (iii) loss of dependency computed on the notional income fixed by the Lok Adalat settlement chart, adopted to ensure consistency and uniformity where actual income is unproved, calls for no interference. Statutory deposit directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5217 OF 2025 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM

¶12

MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HUBBALI BRANCH OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI SKYER, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGARA, HUBBALLI.

¶13

NOW REP BY

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9^TH FLOOR, (LEVEL-6), GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59^TH 'C' CROSS, 4^TH 'M' BLOCK, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560010.

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT SWAPNA R @SWAPNAMMA, W/O. KUMAR @KUMARAPPA,

¶23

KUMARAPPA, S/O. RAMAPPA CHALUVADI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶24

BOTH ARE R/O. 77-67, GANDHINAGARA, MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶25

BASAVARAJA @ BASAVARAJAPPA B S/O. BORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. BAVIHAL VILLAGE, NARAGANAHALLI POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶26

BASAVARAJAPPA N.P. S/O. PAKIRAPPA, MAJOR, R/O. NARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 307/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ADDL. MACT DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,46,320/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶36

The Insurer who is called upon to pay the compensation in a sum of Rs.22,46,320/- to the claimants [ the parents of a certain Sri Rangaswamy ] in MVC No.307/2021 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davanagere [for short, 'the Tribunal'] has preferred this appeal. The Tribunal has granted to the claimants Rs.22,46,320/- under the following heads:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sl. No.	Head of Compensation	Amount [Rs.]
1	Loss of dependency	16,20,000
2	Loss of estate	15,000
3	Funeral expenses	15,000
4	Loss of Consortium	80,000
5	Laid up period	23,100
6	Attendance charge	23,100
7	Medical bills	4,70,117
	*Total*	*22,46,317*
	*Rounded off*	*22,46,320*

¶41

2. The claimants' case is that their son, Sri

¶42

Rangaswamy, was proceeding on a two-wheeler when a Tata Ace Goods vehicle insured with the appellant dashed against the two-wheeler resulting in their son suffering injuries requiring hospitalization for 65 days, including 45 days in ICU with M/s. SSIMS High Tech Hospital, Davanagere. The claimants assert that the deceased was aged 18 years as on the date of the accident, that he was working as a Building Contractor earning Rs.35,000/- per month and that with the loss of their son, they have lost a dependent and hence they are entitled to compensation.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

3. The Tribunal, while answering the Issue

¶47

on whether the claimants prove that the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle, has answered that the driver of the goods vehicle was rash and negligent. The Tribunal's conclusion in this regard is because the driver of the goods vehicle is charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

¶48

Sri N A Mallikarjuna Reddy, the learned

¶49

counsel for Sri B Pradeep on record for the appellant, submits that:

¶50

[a] the deceased has died four months after the accident, and therefore, the nexus between the demise and the injury suffered in the accident is not established,

¶51

[b] the deceased was riding without a license and as such he is responsible for the accident,

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

[c] the Tribunal has taken a higher income as notional income in deciding the loss of dependency.

¶56

The appellant's grievance based on these grounds is examined in the light of the Tribunal’s reasoning on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal has recorded that the deceased, Sri Rangaswamy, who suffered head injuries and injuries all over the body in the accident on 11.03.2020, was immediately taken to M/s. SSIMS High-tech Hospital, Davanagere, where he was an in-patient for the period between 11.03.2020 and 26.05.2020.

¶57

The deceased, Sri Rangaswamy, was in

¶58

the ICU for 45 days, and he was discharged but completely bedridden even as on the time of discharge, and ultimately, he breathed his last on 04.07.2020. The fact that the deceased suffered injuries, which required hospitalization and he was

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

completely bedridden even when he was discharged, undermines the appellant's case that there is no nexus between the injuries suffered and the death.

¶63

The appellant proposes to deflect its liability contending that the deceased was not holding a license yet driving a two-wheeler. The Tribunal's finding is that the accident is because of the negligence of the driver of the goods vehicle, which is insured with the appellant. If the negligence is in the driver of the goods vehicle, and there is nothing to bring on record that the deceased had contributed to the accident, even if the deceased did not hold the license, that in itself cannot be a reason to hold that the appellant can deflect its liability.

¶64

On the last segment viz., the computation of loss of dependency, the claimants' case is that

¶65

their son was a Building Contractor earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The Tribunal has not accepted this evidence but has computed loss of

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

dependency taking notional income as per the chart evolved for settlement in Lok Adalat . The notional income as per the chart is taken to ensure there is consistency and uniformity where there is no proof of actual income. In the circumstances, this Court opines that there is no justification for interference on any of the afore grounds, and hence, the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

The appeal stands rejected. The statutory deposit, deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the

¶72

claimants.

¶73

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶74

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶75

AN/-

The Divisional Manager v. Smt Swapna R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Smt Swapna R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Basavaraju Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri S v Basappa Vs Sri Siddaramu

Kum. Prithi @ Preethi Vs Akhil Varghese

Smt Lakshmi Sunitha @ Sunitha Vs Sri Swaroop

Sri. Shyama Shanbhag Vs Sri. Chethan Kumar M

Smt. Shivalingamma Vs Smt. Chennamma