Dismissed¶45

Smt. Sefiya v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Motor Vehicles Act, S.173(1) – Enhancement of compensation – Fatal accident of 27.08.2021

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026MFA/5044/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement of compensation - fatal motor vehicle accident dated 27.08.2021 - deceased owner-cum-driver of auto rickshaw - no income proof filed - notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month upheld - claim of Rs.45,00,000/- versus award of Rs.28,87,500/- with 6% interest - MFA under S.173(1) MV Act against MVC No.307/2022, MACT-IV, D.K. Mangaluru - New India Assurance Company Ltd. - High Court of Karnataka - P Sree Sudha, J. - appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The claimants filed no income proof of the deceased; merely because he was the owner of the vehicle, the Court cannot presume his income and grant a higher amount. ¶39

Smt. Sefiya Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:16060 MFA No. 5044 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5044 OF 2024(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SEFIYA W/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF @ MOHD. ASHRAF, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶9

SURAYYA, D/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF

¶10

@ MOHD.ASHRAF, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶11

ABDULN SUHAIL, S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

@ MOHD.ASHRAF, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. NEBISA W/O LATE.M.ABDULLA @ ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶16

(THE APPELLANTS9 NO. 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, THE APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN)

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT D.NO. 1-162,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16060 MFA No. 5044 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PARIYALTHADKA, PUNACHA VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TQ. PRESENTLY R/AT KANDAK HOUSE, BUNDER, MANGALURU.

¶21

&APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UPPALA MICRO OFFICE, GULF PLAZA, KAIKAMBA, UPPALA, KASARGOD DIST, KERALA STATE. LOCAL OFFICE FORTUNE BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, OPP. TO ATHENA HOSPITAL, FALNIR, MANGALURU-575001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶25

MR. ADRAMA BEARY, S/O ARABI BEARY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT MIYAPADAVU HOUSE, MIYAPADAVU, MEENJA, KASARGOD, MANJESHWARA, KERALA STATE-671323.

¶26

&RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH G S. ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O. DATED 29.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16060 MFA No. 5044 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.307/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K.MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 22.11.2023 passed in MVC No.307 of 2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-IV, D.K. Mangaluru.

¶34

One Mohammad Ashraf alias Mohd Ashraf met with an accident on 27.08.2021 and died subsequently. His wife, children and mother filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.28,87,500/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16060 MFA No. 5044 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellantclaimants have filed this appeal mainly contending that Mohammad Ashraf was aged 45 years and he was a owner cum driver of auto rickshaw and was earning Rs.2,000 per day, but the Tribunal erred in taking his income as Rs.15,000/- per month and thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶38

At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants stated that Mohammad Ashraf was also a owner cum driver, but the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month and requested this Court to consider his income on higher side.

¶39

Admittedly, the claimants have not filed any income proof and it is simply stated that Mohammad Ashraf was the owner of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, it is for the claimants to prove his income by filing relevant documents, but they failed to do so. Merely because he was the owner of the vehicle, this Court cannot presume his income and grant an higher amount. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and granted

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:16060 MFA No. 5044 of 2024

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

reasonable amounts and therefore, this Court finds no reason

¶44

to interfere with the said order.

¶45