Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager v. Sharan Raj

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026MFA/2188/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal challenging liability for a fatal accident caused by its tipper lorry, affirming the Tribunal's finding of negligence. The Court allowed the claimants' cross-appeal in part, enhancing compensation from Rs.12.92 lakh to Rs.21.30 lakh after accepting the deceased's proven monthly income of Rs.15,000/- based on salary slips and witness testimony, applying Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents on proof of income.

What did the court decide?

MFA 2188/2020 dismissed; MFA 3972/2020 allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.8,38,000/- (total Rs.21,30,000/-) with 6% interest from date of appeal filing; respondent No.2 directed to deposit enhanced amount within six weeks.

The Divisional Manager Vs Sharan Raj — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶3

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2188 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3972 OF 2020

¶10

IN MFA No. 2188/2020

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BEAUTY PLAZA, 2^ND FLOOR, BALMATTA, MANGALORE - 575 001. NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, 4^TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 025.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. H. C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SHARAN RAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE DAMODARA @ DAMODARA GATTY,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶21

KUMARI DEEKSHA SHREE AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, D/O LATE DAMODARA @ DAMODARA GATTY,

¶22

SMT. SHANTHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O LATE DAMODARA @ DAMODARA GATTY,

¶23

THE PARTNER, M/S. HASSAN HAJEE AND CO., NO.20-8-678, KHADEEJA COURT, BUNDER, MANGALURE - 575 001.

¶24

MR. YADAV, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O DEVA POOJARI, R/AT 1-144, THUMBEKODI HOUSE, KURNAD VILLAGE, BANTWAL KURNAD BANTWAL - 574 153.

¶25

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSUANCE CO. LTD., MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 4^TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, OPP. KMC COLLEGE, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 – R3 SRI. D. VIJAYKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R6; R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED)

¶28

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2019 PASSED IN

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶33

MVC.NO.724/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-III AND II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

IN MFA NO. 3972/2020

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

SHARAN RAJ, S/O LATE DAMODARA @ DAMODARA GATTY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-153A, MIJAR HOUSE, KURNADU VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT – 574 219.

¶37

KUMARI DEEKSHA SHREE, D/O LATE DAMODARA @ DAMODARA GATTY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-153A, MIJAR HOUSE, KURNADU VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT – 574 219.

¶38

SMT. SHANTHI, W/O LATE DAMODARA @ DAMODARA GATTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-153A,

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶43

MIJAR HOUSE, KURNADU VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT – 574 219.

¶44

...APPELLANTS

¶45

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

THE PARTNER, M/S. HASSAN HAJEE AND CO., NO.20-8-678, KHADEEJA COURT,BUNDER MANGALURU D. K. DISTRICT – 575 001.

¶48

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BEAUTY PLAZA, 2^ND FLOOR, BALMATTA, MANGALURU, D. K. DISTRICT – 575 001.

¶49

MR. YADAV, S/O DEVA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT 1-144, THUMBEKODI HOUSE, KURNAD VILLAGE, BANTWAL, D. K. DISTRICT – 574 153.

¶50

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 4^TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, OPP: KMC COLLEGE, MANGALURU, D. K. DISTRICT – 575 001.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABENDRAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. D. VIJAYKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED)

¶53

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶57

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2019, PASSED IN MVC.NO.724/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, III ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. AT MANGALURU (DK), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶58

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶59

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶60

CAV JUDGMENT

¶61

These two appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award dated 06.12.2019 passed in MVC.No.724/2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge and III Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru (DK).

¶62

The brief facts of the case is that one Mr.Damodara @ Damodara Gatty S/o Krishnappa, who died in a road accident that took place on 02.02.2016 at about 01.30 pm on account of rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-B-5378 by its driver. On 02.02.2016, deceased

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶66

Damodara Gatty was moving as a pillion rider in an Activa Honda from Thokkottu towards pumpwell along with one Mr.Sudharshan. When they reached Kallapu Mazjid, the driver of the tipper lorry while taking u-turn, dashed the said motorcycle. Consequently, he fell down and sustained injuries. Later, he succumbed to the said injuries. A claim petition was filed by the claimants who are stated to be the son, daughter and wife of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,92,000/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has preferred the appeal in MFA.No.2188/2020 and the claimants being aggrieved by the said meager amount is seeking enhancement of the same in MFA.No.3972/2020.

¶67

The submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in MFA.No.2188/2020 is that the appellant has proved before the Tribunal that there were three persons who were proceeding on the motorcycle, which is contrary to the Section 128 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶68

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶71

It is further submitted that no such accident had

¶72

taken place, however, a false case has been registered against the tipper lorry in order to claim compensation. Even assuming that the accident had taken place, the contributory negligence ought to have been considered by the Tribunal and liability to be fastened upon respondent No.6, which insured the Activa Honda vehicle. Not considering this aspect, resulted in passing the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶73

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the deceased being a third party and also being a pillion rider can claim compensation either of the party or in other words, any of the tortfeasor. Therefore, the claim made before the appellant herein is appropriate and proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered the actual salary of the deceased even though salary slip and its authenticity has been produced and proved through the proper evidence. Therefore, actual salary and also other heads ought have been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court is

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶77

having a jurisdiction to enhance the compensation even in the absence of claim made by the claimants.

¶78

Similarly, Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent No.6 submitted that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the tipper lorry, he has admitted that accident has been occurred due to his negligence. Such being the fact, fastening the liability on the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling would not arise, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the appellant. Therefore, the appeal may be disposed accordingly is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶79

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶80

parties and on perusal of the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties, it is appropriate to deal with each points urged by respective counsels.

¶81

Learned counsel for the appellant in

¶82

MFA.No.2188/2020 contended that liability ought not to have been fixed on the Insurance Company, of which, the tipper lorry got insured is concerned, the Tribunal on relying on the

¶83

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶86

evidence of eyewitnesses and also other circumstances, opined that RW.1 admitted in his evidence that when he was taking u- turn all of a sudden, the accident occurred. The same has been substantiated and corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. Such being the fact, the liability certainly would go to the person who caused accident. Therefore, I concur with the findings of the Tribunal in respect of negligence. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of negligence is liable to be not accepted.

¶87

Once this Court accepted the findings of the Trial Court in respect of negligence is correct, fixing the liability with another insurance company on which the Honda Activa vehicle got insured, i.e., against respondent No.6 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.

¶88

In MFA.No.3972/2020 is concerned, learned counsel

¶89

for the appellant contended on two grounds namely, the income of the deceased had to be considered a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has considered

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶92

10 -

¶93

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶94

only Rs.9,000/- which is much lower side. Further, other heads particularly towards medical and other incidental expenses ought to have been enhanced on higher side in order to give some benefit to the claimants.

¶95

To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJWATI @ RAJJO VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED decided on 09.12.2022 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.8179/2022 (SUPREME COURT) and also in the case of KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. K.S.PAVITHRA AND ANOTHER decided on 04.06.2026 in MFA.NO.4996/2020 C/W MFA.CROB.NO.31/2021 .

¶96

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJWATI (Supra) held that mere production of salary certificate is sufficient to take the income of the deceased even without corroboration. The said ratio had been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and awarded compensation as per the salary slip.

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶99

11 -

¶100

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶101

Having regard to the said precedents, it is appropriate to consider the present case on hand. The Tribunal while discussing under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ considering the income of Rs.9,000/- by adding 25%, it considered the total income of Rs.11,250/-. However, on going through the documents available on record, it appears that the deceased was working as Helper at New Tyres India at Suratkal and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The said document has been proved through the evidence of P.W.3. The Tribunal has committed error in not considering the said document as the actual income of the deceased. Therefore, it is appropriate to take note of the said fact and it requires to be enhanced accordingly.

¶102

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	19,50,000/-
(Rs.15,000/-X 12 + 25%-1/3^rdX 13 )
Medical expenditure expenses and other	20,000/-
incidental expenses
Loss of consortium	80,000/-
Loss of estate	15,000/-
Funeral & obsequies expenses &	15,000/-
transportation of dead body etc.
Loss of love and affection	50,000/-
Total	21,30,000/-
Less awarded by the Tribunal	12,92,000/-
Enhancement	___________ 8,38,000/-

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:50758 MFA No. 2188 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3972 of 2020

¶105

12 -

¶106

CNR: KAHC010100942020

¶107

Accordingly, this Court enhanced a sum of Rs.8,38,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till its realization.

¶108

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶109

ORDER

¶110

i) MFA.No.2188/2020 stands dismissed .

¶111

ii) MFA.No.3972/2020 is allowed in part .

¶112

iii) The respondent No.2 in MVC.No.724/2016 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶113

The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal for necessary action.

¶114

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶115

NR/-

¶116

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

The Divisional Manager v. Sharan Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Sharan Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases