Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Smt. Ashwini W/O Kalyan Halagekar on 21 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102291 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102060 OF 2017
IN M.F.A. NO.102291 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER ,
CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, DARE HOUSE NO.2,
NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001,
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE,
BELAGAVI-590 010.
2. KUMARI KALYANI
D/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 03 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE,
BELAGAVI-590 010.
3. SMT. RENUKA W/O. KRISHNA
@ KRISHNAJI HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KUDACHI VILLAGE, BELAGAVI-591 311.
4. MR. NANASO S/O. KISAN NARUTE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT/POST: SASTEWADI,
TALUK: BARAMATI, DIST: PUNE,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA-413 102.
(OWNER OF TATA GOODS VEHICLE
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.MH.42/B-8744)
5. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. TUKARAM JAGTAP,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT/POST: YELIV, TALUK: KHATAV,
DIST: SATARA, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-415 505.
(OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.MH.11/5358)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED;
V/O/DATED 25.03.2019 R5 IS APPEAL AGAINST REJECTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED BY THE X
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
MACT, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.1946/2014 WITH COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.102060 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
2. KUMARI KALYANI D/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 01 MONTH, OCC: NIL,
REPT. BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER,
ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SMT. RENUKA W/O. KRISHNA
@ KRISHNAJI HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MR. NANASO S/O. KISAN NARUTE,
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT/POST: SASTEWADI,
TQ: BARAMATI, DIST: PUNE-043,
STATE MAHARASHTRA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, DARE HOUSE NO.2,
NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
3. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. TUKARAM JAGTAP,
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT POST: YELIV, TQ: KHATAV,
DIST: SATARA-415110,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
26.11.2016 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT AT BELAGAVI IN M.V.C.
NO.1946/2014, AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED
FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
These two appeals are filed by the insurer and the
claimants. The insurer, in MFA No.102291/2017, disputes
the involvement of its vehicle in the accident and denies
liability. The claimant, in MFA No.102060/2017, seeks
enhancement of the compensation awarded. Since both
appeals arise out of a common judgment and award, they
are heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. Though the appeals were listed for admission,
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
appeals were taken up for final disposal.
3. The claimants filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,
'the MV Act'), seeking compensation for the death of
Sri Kalyan in a road traffic accident that occurred on
01.06.2014 at about 8:30 p.m., involving a Bajaj
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-11/AF-0372 and a
Tata goods vehicle bearing registration No.MH-42/B-8744.
As per the averments in the claim petition, the deceased
was employed as a Field Assistant and was earning
Rs.13,306/- per month. It is stated that he was the sole
earning member of the family and was aged about 27
years at the time of the accident. It is further contended
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Tata goods vehicle.
4. After service of notice, the respondents entered
appearance and filed their objections. Respondent No.1,
the owner of the vehicle, denied the entire case of the
claimants, including the age, occupation, and income of
the deceased. However, Respondent No.1 did not dispute
the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and
contended that the said vehicle was duly insured with
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It was further
submitted that, in the event of compensation being
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
awarded, the liability to pay the same rests with the
insurer.
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed
detailed objections, contending that there was a delay in
lodging the complaint and disputing the involvement of the
alleged Tata goods vehicle. It was further contended that
the death had occurred due to the rash and negligent
riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself. In
furtherance to this, the insurer asserted that the driver of
the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid and
effective driving licence, thereby violating the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, it was submitted
that the insurer is not liable to indemnify Respondent
No.1.
6. In support of their claim, Petitioner No.1
examined herself as PW.1 and produced 22 documents,
marked as Exhibits P1 to P22. On behalf of Respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
No.2, its official/representative was examined as RW.1,
and 5 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R5.
7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on
record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Tata goods vehicle and that
the death of the deceased was a result of the injuries
sustained in the said accident. Taking the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.13,128/- after deducting
professional tax, and considering the age of the deceased
as 27 years, the Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier
and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
Accordingly, it awarded a sum of Rs.17,85,408/- towards
loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded
compensation under other conventional heads.
8. Sri S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing
for the insurer, submits that there was a delay of 17 days
in lodging the complaint and that the involvement of the
insured vehicle is doubtful. It is contended that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
description of the vehicle in the complaint and the
panchanama are contradictory. Learned counsel submitted
that, although the fact that the deceased died due to the
accident is not in dispute, the involvement of the alleged
vehicle has not been conclusively established. It is further
submitted that if, as contended by the petitioners, the
deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in a hit-
and-run case, the claim petition under Section 166 of the
MV Act is not maintainable.
9. Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing
for the claimants-respondents, submits that the owner of
the vehicle has not disputed the involvement of the said
vehicle in the accident. He further submits that although
the accident occurred on 01.06.2014 and the complaint
was lodged after a delay of 17 days, the delay was due to
the death of a family member, which is a justifiable
reason. Learned counsel also contends that the police,
after investigation, have filed a charge sheet, and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
according to the said charge sheet, the involvement of the
Tata goods vehicle in the accident is clearly established.
9.1 Learned counsel further submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side. It has contended that the amounts awarded under
the conventional heads are inadequate and contrary to the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is
submitted that the claimants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, with a 10%
enhancement every three years from the date of the
accident, as per the settled law.
10. Having considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, the points that arise for consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding
that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tata goods
vehicle bearing registration No.MH-42/B-8744?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal warrants interference by this Court?
11. The answer to Point No.2 would depend upon
the finding of this Court on Point No.1. Hence, Point No.1
is taken up for detailed consideration.
Regarding Point No.1:
12. It is the specific case of the insurer that the
offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and has
been falsely implicated and the complaint having been
registered belatedly, 17 days after the incident. It is
further contended that the police themselves registered
the complaint on 18.06.2014 in relation to the accident
that occurred on 01.06.2014. In the statement of
objections filed by the insurer, a categorical plea has been
raised regarding the non-involvement of the alleged
offending vehicle in the accident. In view of the specific
allegation of false implication, the burden lies on the
claimants to establish the involvement of the said vehicle.
This requirement gains more relevance in the light of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
fact that the panchanama at Ex.P-8 was drawn on
02.06.2014, whereas the complaint and FIR are dated
18.06.2014. It is rather peculiar that the panchanama was
drawn even before the FIR was registered, or conversely,
that the FIR came to be registered 16 days after the
preparation of the panchanama.
13. It is also noteworthy that, while the FIR and
charge sheet mention the registration number of the
vehicle, the complaint and the panchanama, though they
contain a general description of the vehicle, do not record
its registration number. Another crucial aspect is the
absence of any evidence explaining how the registration
number of the alleged offending vehicle was ascertained.
The record is completely silent in this regard. Furthermore,
as evident from Ex.P-4, the Khabari Jabab was recorded
based on the personal information of the Assistant Police
Inspector who was on duty at the location of the alleged
accident. If the accident of involving the insured vehicle
had happened on the alleged date in the presence of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
complainant, nothing prevented reporting such incident.
Failure to do this, the submission of insurer assumed
significance. The remaining evidence on record establishes
the factum of the accident and the resultant death of the
deceased due to injuries sustained therein. However, the
evidence on record goes no further and is limited to
establishing these two aspects alone.
14. Neither the claimants nor the police authorities
have offered any explanation for the delay in the
registration of the FIR. In this regard, though the learned
counsel for the claimants submitted that, in the State of
Maharashtra, FIRs are registered only after completion of
a preliminary investigation, such a submission is not
supported by any statutory provision. Exhibits P-10, P-11,
and P-12-Accident Report Forms issued by the Deputy
Regional Transport Officer dated 24.06.2014 indicate
certain damages to the vehicle allegedly involved in the
accident. However, these documents also give rise to
doubt due to the delay in the inspection process. Although
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
the accident is stated to have occurred on 01.06.2014, the
inspection of the vehicle was conducted only on
20.06.2014. The delay in subjecting the vehicle to
inspection by the Transport Authority remains unexplained
and lends credence to the contention raised by the insurer.
15. The Tribunal framed an issue regarding the
death of the deceased and the involvement of the
offending TATA goods vehicle. However, the Tribunal,
merely relying on the complainant's denial of the
suggestion that the vehicle was falsely implicated for the
purpose of making a compensation claim, proceeded to
hold that the evidence adduced by the claimants was
sufficient to prove that the deceased died due to the
injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal has
committed a manifest error in not recording any specific
finding on the involvement of the alleged offending
vehicle.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
16. While the occurrence of the accident and the
death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained therein
were not seriously in dispute before the Tribunal, the
crucial issue requiring adjudication was the involvement of
the said vehicle in the accident. The Tribunal's conclusion
in awarding compensation, without addressing this crucial
aspect, is therefore without any legal or factual
foundation.
17. This Court has also perused the evidence
available on record. A comparative reading of the FIR at
Ex.P-1, the complaint at Ex.P-3, the panchanama at
Ex.P-8, and the charge sheet at Ex.P-13 reveals
contradictions with respect to the description of the
vehicle. Even if minor discrepancies in the description
pertaining only to the make of the vehicle are to be
disregarded, the evidence adduced by the claimants falls
short of establishing the involvement of the alleged
offending vehicle in the accident.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
18. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded
by the Tribunal is not supported by any cogent evidence.
Further, the Tribunal appears to have misread and mis-
appreciated the evidence on record while arriving at its
conclusion. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the
negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
19. The submission of the learned counsel for the
claimants in that the income adopted for computing
compensation is incorrect and without merit. The Tribunal
has rightly accepted the claim regarding the monthly
salary of the deceased. The age of the deceased and the
applicable deductions were not seriously disputed.
However, the compensation awarded under the
conventional heads warrants interference by this Court.
The compensation awarded towards loss of consortium is
on the lower side. Each of the claimants would be entitled
to a sum of Rs.40,000/- in view of the law laid down by
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others1.
Furthermore, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited v. Nanu Ram2, the compensation awarded under
the heads of loss of love and affection, funeral expenses,
and consortium is liable to be enhanced by 10% every
three years. However, in view of the answer to Point No.1,
this Court does not find it necessary to re-compute the
compensation. Since the claimants have failed to establish
the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, the
claim petition is liable to be rejected.
20. For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the insurance company in
M.F.A.No.102291/2017 is allowed.
(ii) The appeal filed by the claimants in
M.F.A.No.102060/2017 is dismissed.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2018) SCC 130
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
HC-KAR
(iii) The judgment and award dated 26.11.2016 on
the file of X Addl. District and Sessions Judge
and Addl. MACT, Belagavi in M.V.C.
No.1946/2014 is set aside.
(iv) The claim petition in M.V.C.No.1946/2014 is
rejected.
(v) The insurer is at liberty to withdraw the
amount in deposit, if any.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU/NAA
CT: UMD
