[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Smt. Mehadevi W/O Ramappa Kalyani on 17 December, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
MFA No. 102924 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 103518 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102924/2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103518 OF 2017
IN MFA NO.102924/2017
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
HANAMASHETTY BUILDING, GURUKUL ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA,
BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. SMT. MEHADEVI W/O. RAMAPPA KALYANI,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
Date: 2025.12.22
10:20:47 +0530 R/O: MAREGUDDI TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST.BAGALKOT-587101.
2. RAVIKUMAR T. S/O. RAMCHANDRARAO
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: 4-33-39 BIMANNAVARIPETH,
OPP MILK PROJECT, VIJAYAWADA 01
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE SERVED TO R2.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
MFA No. 102924 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 103518 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.05.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.276/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-VI, JAMKHANDI, BY EXONERATING THE APPELLANT
INSURANCE COMPANY BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST
IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.103518/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. RAMAPPA KALYANI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MAREGUDDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SRI RAVIKUMAR T. S/O. RAMCHANDRARAO
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 4-33-39, BIMANNAVARIPETH,
OPP: MILK PROJECT, VIJAYAWADA-520013,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HANAMASHETTY BUILDING,
GURUKUL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND AWARD COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY MODIFYING THE AWARD DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
MFA No. 102924 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 103518 of 2017
HC-KAR
03.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.276/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VI, JAMKHANDI, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
These appeals are preferred under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insurer and the
unsatisfied claimant, respectively challenging the judgment
and award passed in MVC No.276/2013, dated 03.05.2017,
on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member,
MACT-VI, Jamakhandi, (for short the 'Tribunal').
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience
and clarity.
3. The insurer has filed the appeal questioning
saddling of liability upon insurance company alleging breach
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
of basic policy condition and the claimant has filed the
appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation.
4. Claimant has filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the
Act'), seeking compensation for the death of her son-
Chandrasekhar in a motor vehicle accident that had taken
place on 16.04.2013 at about 02.50 p.m. on Jamkhandi-
Banahatti PWD road in front of Town Police Station,
Jamkhandi, involving motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-48/E-5114 and truck bearing registration
No.AP-16/TT-3236.
5. The case of claimant in a nutshell is that, when
the son of claimant was proceeding towards A.G.Desai
Circle on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-48/E-5114 in front of Jamakhandi Town Police
Station, the driver of truck bearing No.AP-16/TT-3236 drove
it rashly and negligently without applying brake and blow
the horn and dashed the motorcycle from hind side and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
thereby caused the accident. Due to the accident, son of
claimant sustained grievous injuries and while on the way to
hospital, he succumbed to those injuries. Claimant further
contended that her son was aged about 29 years, doing
petty business in Mareguddi village and earning ₹10,000/-
per month.
6. After service of notice, respondent No.2, the
insurer appeared through its counsel and filed objection
statement wherein it denied the accident involving the
offending vehicle, negligence on the part of driver of the
truck and denied all its liability. The insurance Company
further took contention that the truck in question had no
valid fitness certificate as on the date of accident. The
driver was not having valid and effective driving license.
The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also proper
and necessary parties to the petition. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition. It also took contention that it will
take all the contentions that are available under Section 170
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
of the Act, if the owner colluded with the petitioner and
remain uncontested.
7. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as
PW.1 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.7 before the tribunal
and on behalf of respondent No.2, its Administrative Officer
was examined as RW.1 apart from marking Exs.R.1 and
R.2.
8. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has passed
the judgment and award, awarding total compensation of
₹6,32,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of
petition till its deposit and saddling liability on the insurance
holding that the insurer failed to produce evidence to show
the owner had knowledge or consented to drive the truck in
question.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer has filed
appeal on the ground that the driver of the truck in question
was in intoxicated state of mind at the time of alleged
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
accident and charge sheet is filed against him alleging the
offence under Section 185 of the Act, which itself establish
the intoxication against the driver and owner has knowledge
about it; hence the basic condition of the insurance policy
was violated by the owner and hence, it is not liable to pay
compensation.
10. On the other hand, the claimant has filed appeal
praying for enhancement of compensation on the ground
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is incorrect,
the income of the deceased was not taken properly and
compensation under other conventional heads were not
awarded properly. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal
filed by claimant and for dismissal of the appeal filed by the
insurer.
11. Heard Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for the
insurance company and Sri Siddappa Sajjan, learned
counsel for the claimant and perused the appeal papers
along with records of the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel for insurance Company
Sri G.N.Raichur would submit that the driver of the vehicle
was in intoxicated state at the time of accident and charge
sheet against him was filed under Section 185 of the Act.
The Tribunal has not considered this plea in a proper
manner and not appreciated the condition No.2(c) of the
insurance policy in a proper manner. Hence, prayed for
exonerating the insurance Company from payment of
compensation.
13. Learned counsel for insurance Company also
submits that the sketch and panchanama would reveal that
there is negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle in
causing the accident. Hence, there is contributory
negligence on the part of deceased in causing the accident.
14. Learned counsel for claimant Sri Siddappa Sajjan
would submit that the income of deceased was taken at
₹6,000/- per month by the Tribunal. However, the accident
had taken place in the year 2013 and thus as per the chart
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for
settlement of cases before Lok Adalath, it ought to have
been taken at ₹7,000/- per month and future prospects are
to be added to decide the income of deceased. He would
further submit that on conventional heads also proper
compensation is not awarded. Hence, prayed for
enhancement of compensation. He would further submit
that, it is only because of the negligence of the driver of
truck, the accident had taken place and there was no
negligence on the part of deceased. He would further
submit that the respondents had not let in any evidence and
not produced any certificate to show that the driver of truck
was in intoxicated state of mind at the time of causing the
accident. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal filed by the
insurer and to allow the appeal of claimant.
15. Having heard arguments of both sides and
verifying the appeal papers along with the Tribunal records,
the points that would arise for consideration are as under:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
i) Whether the insurer establishes that
the driver of the truck was driving the Truck in
intoxicated state of mind with the knowledge or
consent of the insured/owner and thereby
violates the basic condition of policy?
ii) Whether claimant is entitled for
enhanced compensation?
16. Our finding on the above points is in negative
and affirmative, respectively for the following:
REASONS
17. The date, place and time of accident is not in
dispute. The death of son of claimant-Chandrasekhar in a
motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 16.04.2013
at about 02.50 p.m. on Jamkhandi-Banahatti PWD road in
front of Town Police Station, Jamkhandi, involving
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/E-5114 and truck
bearing registration No.AP-16/TT-3236 is an admitted fact.
18. The spot sketch annexed to spot panchanama as
per Ex.P.3 would reveal that the accident has taken place
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
about 03 feet from northern side towards southern side of
the road. Thus, the accident was not taken place in the
middle of the road as alleged by the learned counsel for
insurer. There is no material produced by the insurer to
prove the contributory negligence on the part of deceased
in causing the accident, except making said allegation.
19. One more contention raised by the insurer is that
the driver of the truck was in intoxicated state of mind at
the time of accident. In this regard, he mainly relies upon
the averments made in FIR and filing of charge-sheet
against accused alleging the offence under Section 185 of
the Act.
20. Section 185 of the Act is a penal provision for a
drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs
driving the vehicle on road.
21. No document is produced before the Tribunal or
before this Court to show that the driver was examined by
the competent Medical Officer immediately after the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
accident and a Certificate was issued in that regard to show
that he was in intoxicated state of mind at the time of
causing the accident. In the absence of such material, only
by verifying the charge-sheet averments, it cannot be said
that the insurer is able to establish that the driver of the
truck was in intoxicated state of mind at the time of driving
the truck. To the court query to the learned counsel for
insurer as to whether any piece of document is appended to
charge sheet to establish intoxication state of driver,
learned counsel for insurer has no answer.
22. In this record reliance is placed on the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mathew Alexander
vs. Mohammed Shafi and another, reported in (2023)
13 SCC 510, wherein at paragraph No.11 it is held as
under:
"11. Insofar as the claim petition filed by
the appellant herein is concerned, alleged
negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker
lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has
to be proved. That is a matter which has to be
considered on the basis of preponderance of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the
claim petitions filed by the appellant herein or
other claimants to let in their
respective evidence and the burden is on them
to prove negligence on the part of the driver of
the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as
the case may be, in causing the accident. In
such an event, the claim petition would be
considered on its own merits. It is needless to
observe that if the proof of negligence on the
part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not
established then, in that event, the claim petition
will be disposed of accordingly."
23. Thus, mere filing of charge sheet cannot be a
ground to say that the driver was in intoxicated state of
mind. Said driver was not examined or as stated above, no
Certificate is produced to prove the same. Only after
establishing the said fact, the question of knowledge or
consent of the insured/owner would arise.
24. Furthermore, except putting some suggestions to
claimant, which were not admitted by her, nothing was
elicited in her evidence to substantiate the above fact.
Except the oral evidence of Administrative Officer, who has
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
no personal knowledge, no admissible evidence is produced
by the insurer to say that the driver was driving the truck
by consuming alcohol and was in intoxicated state of mind
and it was in the knowledge/consent of the insured/owner.
Under these circumstances, the insurer failed to establish
this contention. The insurer has taken a frivolous plea of
contributory negligence on the part of rider of the
motorcycle and another frivolous plea of intoxicated state of
mind of driver of the truck with knowledge/consent of the
insured/owner without establishing any of those facts.
Hence, the appeal of insurer is liable to be dismissed with
costs of ₹25,000/-.
25. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned,
admittedly the accident has taken place in the year 2013.
According to claimant, her son was running a petty shop
and earning ₹10,000/- per month. But no document is
produced to establish it. When no document is produced to
prove the actual income of the deceased, the notional
income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
Authority for settlement of cases before Lok ADalath is to be
considered. According to it, for the year 2013, the notional
income of deceased is to be taken at ₹7,000/- per month.
But the Tribunal has taken only ₹6,000/- per month, which
is on lower side.
26. The deceased left behind his only mother and he
was a bachelor. Hence relying upon Sarla Verma (Smt)
and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, 50% of
his income is to be deducted towards his personal
expenses.
27. Relying upon National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017)
16 Supreme Court Cases 680, 40% of future prospects is
to be added to the income of deceased as deceased was
aged about 29 years as on the date of accident. The
relevant multiplier is 17. Accordingly the amount of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
compensation to be awarded under the head loss of
dependency would be:
₹7,000 + 40% minus 50% x 12 x 17 = ₹9,99,600/-.
28. As far as compensation under the conventional
head- filial consortium, relying on the Pranay Sethi's case
(supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu
Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court
Cases 130, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
₹44,000/- including escalation charges instead of
₹10,000/-. Likewise, claimant is entitled for compensation
of ₹16,500/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of
estate instead of ₹10,000/- only awarded by the Tribunal
for funeral expenses. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of ₹10,76,600/- as against ₹6,32,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
29. Further, the interest awarded by the Tribunal on
compensation amount at 9% p.a. is exorbitant. Hence, the
same is scaled down to 6% p.a.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
30. In view of the above discussion, we pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the insurer in MFA
No.102924/2017 is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-;
ii) The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA
No.103518/2017 is allowed in part;
iii) The judgment and award in MVC No.276/2013,
dated 03.05.2017, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge
and Member, MACT-VI, Jamakhandi, is modified;
iv) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of
₹10,76,600/- as against ₹6,32,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization;
v) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall
deposit compensation amount with interest within a period
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18352-DB
HC-KAR
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment;
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8
