Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Avinash on 13 August, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                               -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB
                                                       MFA No. 201651 of 2025


                    HC-KAR




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                            PRESENT
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                                              AND
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF


                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201651 OF 2025 (MV-D)


                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                   RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
                   COMPANY LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR,
                   ASIAN PLAZA, S.V. PATEL CHOWK,
                   MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                   (NOW REPRESENTED BY
                   AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
                   DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI)
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
                   (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          AND:

                   1.   AVINASH
                        S/O. BUDHAPPA WAGHMARE,
                        AGE 23 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT,
                        R/O. BHIMNAGAR,
                        TQ. MANGALVEDHA,
                        DIST. SOLAPUR - 413305.


                   2.   SAKSHI
                        D/O. BUDHAPPA WAGHMARE,
                           -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB
                                  MFA No. 201651 of 2025


 HC-KAR




     AGE 20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
     R/O. BHIMNAGAR,
     TQ:MANGALVEDHA,
     DIST:SOLAPUR-413305.

3.   MAHENDRA
     S/O. RAJENDRA BAGADE,
     AGE MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF
     MOTORCYCLE NO.MH-25/AX-9896,
     R/O. KESHENGAON, TQ:TULJAPUR,
     DIST:OSMANABAD,
     NOW AT BHIMNAGAR,
     TQ:MANGALVEDHA,
     DIST:SOLAPUR-413305.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2:
    V/O. DATED 13.08.2025, NOTICE TO         R3   IS   HELD
    SUFFICIENT)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2024 IN MVC
NO.952/2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT AT KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.


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


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
          AND
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
                             -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB
                                    MFA No. 201651 of 2025


HC-KAR




                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company and also counsel appearing

for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the

Insurance Company challenging the liability as well as

quantum passed vide order dated 04.11.2024 in MVC

No.952/2023 by the court of the IV Additional Senior Civil

Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi (for short, 'Tribunal').

3. The factual matrix of the case of claimants

before the Tribunal that on 01.06.2023, their mother

Deepali W/o Budhappa Waghmare was proceeding as a

pillion rider along with her relative - respondent No.1 in a

motorcycle. When they returning near Mahila Hospital,

Mangalvedha Huljanti road, respondent No.1 rode the

motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed

against the buffalo, due to which deceased Deepali fell

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

down and sustained grievous injuries on her head. At the

first instance, she was taken to the hospital to Mahila

Hospital, Mangalvedha and thereafter she was taken to

CNS Hospital, Solapur for higher treatment. Due to

accidental injuries, she passed away on 06.06.2023.

Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal by

the children who are the claimants. Tribunal having

considered the material available on record particularly

considering the age of deceased at 35 years, added 40%

of future prospects and awarded compensation in all to the

tune of Rs.29,47,928/- and liability was fixed on both

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed respondent No.2-

Insurer to pay the said amount.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal present appeal is filed by the

Insurance Company.

5. The main contention of appellant/Insurance

Company that the first claimant is aged about 21 years,

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

who is son of deceased and the age of deceased shown in

the post mortem is 35 years cannot be accepted and

having added 40% of the future prospects and also

applying of multiplier '16' is not correct.

6. The other ground of argument of the Insurance

Company is that the accident had taken place on

01.06.2023 and complaint was filed on 10.06.2023. There

is a delay and same has not been explained. It is clear

case of false implication of the vehicle. Fixing the liability

on the Insurance Company is also erroneous and the

Tribunal has not taken note of the said fact into

consideration.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

claimants would vehemently contend that deceased was a

mother of claimants and the very contention that she is

aged more than 40 years cannot be accepted and there is

no material. The counsel also brought to the notice of this

Court the document at Ex.P.28- Medico-Legal Case (MLC)

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

is produced before the Tribunal and it clearly discloses that

within a span of two hours of the accident, MLC No.2236

was sent to the police station on 01.06.2023 at 7.00 p.m.

and accident had taken place at 5.30 p.m. and hence, the

very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be

accepted. There was no delay, but police intimation was

given on the very same day.

8. The counsel also vehemently contend that the

Tribunal taken note of the material available on record and

passed the appropriate award and it does not requires any

interference.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant and also the counsel appearing for

respondents/ claimants and also considering the grounds

which have been urged in the appeal and during the

course of arguments, the points that would arise for

consideration are :

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

i) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in awarding exorbitant compensation as contended by the appellant's counsel ?

ii) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the aspect of delay in lodging the complaint and fails to take note of implication of vehicle and whether it requires interference of this Court ?

iii) What order ?

Point No.2 :

10. Having heard the appellant's counsel as well as

the counsel appearing for the respondents and considering

the material available on record, no doubt there was a

delay of ten days in lodging the complaint and also taking

note of the fact that the accident was occurred on

01.06.2023 at 5.00 p.m., and the injured was succumbed

to the injuries on 06.06.2023. The fact that, immediately

the injured was taken to CNS Hospital, at Solapur. There is

force in the contention of the respondents counsel that on

the date of accident itself as referred above intimation was

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

given to the concerned police i.e., Solapur Taluk Police

Station by the concerned police and also Ex.P.28 is very

clear that the date of admitting of patient to the hospital is

on 01.06.2023 and the intimation was given to the

concerned hospital at 7.00 p.m and MLC number is also

mentioned as MLC No.2236 and this document was not

disputed before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company.

Hence the very contention that there was a delay in

lodging the complaint and false implication of vehicle

cannot be accepted in view of the document of Ex.P.28

and the said document clearly discloses that the patient

name is also mentioned clearly as Deepali W/o Budhappa

Waghmare and also timings of the accident also

categorically mentioned that it was 5.30 p.m. When such

being the case, immediately within a span of one and half

hour the intimation was communicated to the concerned

hospital i.e., CNS Hospital by the Solapur Taluk Police

Station. The very contention of the Insurance Company

that vehicle was falsely implicated cannot be accepted as

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

there is no material to that effect. Hence, Point No.2 is

answered in negative.

Point No.1 :

11. The contention of the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the award

amount is higher side and exorbitant. To that effect, no

doubt there is force in the contention of the counsel for

the appellant that the Tribunal has taken the age of

deceased at 35 years and having taken note of age of son

i.e., claimant No.1, it is mentioned as 21 years. But there

cannot be a 21 years old son, when the deceased was died

at the age of 35 years. However, taking into note of the

fact that the deceased is a mother and there are chances

of performing marriage of the woman at the age of 18

years and if age of 18 years is taken, it comes within the

age of 39 years. The very contention of the

appellant/Insurance company that age taken in the PM

report cannot be accepted and we do not find any such

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

force in the said contention as age also may be 39 years .

However, the Tribunal committed an error in applying the

multiplier of '16' and ought to have been applied the

multiplier of '15' between the age group of 36-40 years

and hence, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the

multiplier of '16'.

12. Now taking the income at Rs.15,250/- and

adding of 40% which comes to Rs.21,350/- and applying

the multiplier of '15', it comes to Rs.3,20,250/- and after

deducting 1/3rd, it comes to Rs.2,13,500/- x 12, it comes

to Rs.25,62,000/-.

13. The amounts awarded in other heads are not

exorbitant and the same are in terms of the judgment of

Magma General Insurance Co. Limited vs. Nanu Ram

& Others1 and hence it does not require for any

interference. However, it requires modification of the

judgment and award except loss of dependency calculated

2018 ACJ 2782

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4636-DB

HC-KAR

by the Tribunal. The other amount awarded towards loss

of consortium, medical expenses as well as transportation

and loss of estate, we do not find any error and question

of revisiting on those heads does not arise. In view of the

multiplier of 15, loss of dependency it reduced to

Rs.25,62,000/- and adding other compensation, it comes

to Rs.27,77,000/-. Hence, we answered point No.1 partly

affirmative.

14. In view of the discussions made above, we pass

the following :

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The judgment and award dated 04.11.2024 passed in MVC No.952/2023 by the Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi is modified by reducing the compensation.