Karnataka High Court
Lingaraj S/O Chandrashekharappa ... vs Laxmibai W/O Shanmukappa Akkasalig on 31 July, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
MFA No. 102615 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
M.F.A NO.102615 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W. M.F.A. NO. 101652 OF 2020 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO. 102615/2015
BETWEEN
SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. LINGARAJ S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA ABBIGERI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High 2. DIVISION MANAGER,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
BRANCH OFFICE, HUBLI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
AT FIRST FLOOR, KALABURGI SQARE,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
3. MAHESH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
4. MANJUNATH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
5. VISHWANATH SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
MFA No. 102615 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020
HC-KAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
6. TRIMOORTHI S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
7. MALLIKARJUN SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
8. SUDARSHAN S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR,
TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3, R4, R5, R7 & R8 SERVED;
NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2015, PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., YELABURGA IN
M.V.C. NO.38/2012, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY GRANTING THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT-CLAIMANT, IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 101652/2020
BETWEEN
LINGARAJ S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA ABBIGERI,
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
OWNER AND DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KA-26/8779,
AT POST: KUKANOOR, TQ: YELBURGA,
(NOW NEW KUKANOOR TALUKA),
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583232.
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LAXMIBAI W/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
MFA No. 102615 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020
HC-KAR
AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK.
2. MAHESH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG,
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK.
3. MANJUNATH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK.
4. VISHVANATH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK.
5. TRIMURTHI S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG,
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK.
6. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG,
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK.
7. SUDHRSAHN S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG,
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KUKANOOR,
TALUKA: YELBURGA (NOW NEW KUKANOOR TQ)
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583232.
8. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CHORAMANDAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
HUBBALLI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR,
KALBURGI SQURE, DESPANDE NAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 583424.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R5;
SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
NOTICE TO R3, R4, R6 & R7 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T, YELBURGA IN M.V.C. NO.38/2012 PASSED ON
27/07/2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
28.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
MFA No. 102615 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
MFA No.101652/2020 filed by the owner and MFA
No.102615/2015 filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 27.07.2015 passed in MVC
No.38/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Yelburga
('Tribunal', for short).
2. Heard Sri Rajashekhar B.Halli, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant - owner of the vehicle submits that
the Tribunal has committed grave error in saddling liability on
the owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred
in holding that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not having
driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle and the vehicle
involved is the transport vehicle. The issue is covered by the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the
conclusion that there is a violation of permit as the auto
rickshaw was plying beyond the permitted area. It is also
2017 SAR (Civil) 1008
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
submitted that the auto rickshaw involved in the accident had a
valid permit on the date of accident and if it is plied beyond the
area, it is not amounting to violation of the conditions of the
insurance policy and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
on the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Abdul
Rouf v. Megharaj Mehdole and others2, the Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v.
Manjunatta and others3, the Divisional Manager, Reliance
General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.Pushpa and
others4. He seeks to allow the appeal filed by the owner of the
vehicle by shifting the liability on the Insurance Company.
3. Sri Ravindra R.Mane, learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal and submits that there is violation of the
permit condition. Hence, there should be a direction to the
Insurance Company to pay and recover. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and others v.
MFA No.201648/2015 and connected appeal DD 26.11.2020
MFA No.102355/2023 and connected appeals DD 27.08.2024
MFA No.101103/2017 DD 01.02.2024
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and
others5, Rani and others vs. National Insurance Company
Ltd. and Ors6 and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. The Shiv
Co-op Transport Society Ltd. And Ors7. It is submitted that
the contention with regard to the valid driving licence is not
seriously disputed by the Insurance Company. Hence, he seeks
to dismiss the appeal filed by the owner by directing the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount with
liberty to recover the said amount. It is further submitted that
the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and fair, does
not call for any enhancement.
4. Sri J.S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed
grave error in assessing the income and awarded meager
compensation under the head of loss of dependency and also
on conventional heads. He seeks to allow the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties. Meticulously perused the
2018 ACJ 1768
2018 (8) SCC 492
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
material on record. We have given our anxious consideration to
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in these
appeals is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award calls
for any interference?"
7. The wife and children of the deceased
Shanmukhappa filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. They
have adduced the evidence of claimant No.1 as PW1 and got
marked Exhibits P1 to P17. The respondent examined RW1 to
RW3 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R7. The Tribunal
considering the material on record allowed the claim petition in
part awarding compensation of ₹2,50,000/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum by directing the owner of the vehicle to pay
the compensation.
8. The undisputed facts are that on 17.06.2012, the
husband of claimant No.1 and father of the other claimants met
with a road accident, sustained grievous injuries and later
succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was retired KPTCL
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
employee and was aged about 64 years and he was drawing
₹16,583/- as a monthly maintenance and the claimants are the
dependents. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the driver of
the auto rickshaw which was involved in the accident was not
having driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle.
Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident is a non-
transport vehicle and the driver was having a licence to drive
transport vehicle. However, the said issue is no more res-
integra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan referred supra answered the said issue and the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company also does not
dispute the same. The non-transport licence holder did not
require separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle
weighing less than 7500 kgs.
9. The Tribunal taking note of the permit placed on
record recorded the finding that the auto rickshaw was plying
beyond the permit area. The records indicate that the auto
rickshaw was having a valid permit to ply within the jurisdiction
of Halligudi Gram Panchayat limits and the accident in question
has taken place between Kuknoor to Banapur village on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
17.06.2012. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Abdul Rouf referred supra considering the earlier judgments of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that there is difference
between no permit and having a valid permit, but the vehicle
was taken beyond the permit limit and directed the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation. The relevant paragraphs
are extracted herein below for easy reference.
"7. The insurance company has not seriously
disputed the accident, involvement of the
offending vehicle in the same and also the
liability to satisfy the award amount. However,
grievance of the learned counsel for the
appellant-insurance company is that the
direction of the learned Tribunal to satisfy the
award amount entirely by the insurance
company without giving a further direction to
recover the same from the owner of the
offending vehicle in the factual background that
the accident has taken place within the State of
Andhra Pradesh where the offending vehicle had
no permit to ply is clearly unjustified. The fact
that the offending vehicle was having valid
permit to ply in the State of Maharashtra is not
in dispute. Further it was brought to our notice
that Ex.R7 (policy of Insurance) does not contain
any term regarding the aspect of permit. The
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
observation of a co-ordinate bench of this Court
in MFA No.30752/2011 C/W. MFA
No.30753/2011 and MFA No.30388/2012 (MV)
dated 11.07.2018 at para-10 reads as follows:
" There is no dispute about the
autorickshaw having insurance coverage
as on the date of accident; according to
the insurance company, since six
passengers travelled in it and that the
accident occurred at a place beyond the
area permitted for plying and therefore its
liability to indemnify the owner gets
exonerated. It is not possible to accept
this argument. It is not the case that
there was no permit at all for the
autorickshaw. It had a valid permit, but
it was taken beyond the permitted limit.
There is some difference between the
two. If there is no permit at all, or if a
transport vehicle is used for a purpose not
allowed by the permit as envisaged in
S.149 (2) (a) (i) (c), the insurance
company need not indemnify the liability of
the insured for violation of policy condition.
But where a vehicle is taken beyond the
limits, it cannot be said that there is
violation of policy condition, it is
contravention of permit condition which is
punishable according to S.192A of the
Motor Vehicles Act."
8. In view of the above, the contention of the
learned counsel for the insurance company that
since the offending vehicle did not have any
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
permit to ply in the State of Andhra Pradesh,
insurance company has no liability to satisfy the
award amount cannot be accepted and
accordingly the contention put forth in this
behalf is rejected."
10. Similarly this Court in the case of the Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited referred
supra following the earlier decision of this Court has taken the
similar view and also in the case of Divisional Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited referred
supra. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit
Paul Singh referred supra, in the case of Rani and others
referred supra and the decision in the case of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited referred supra held that there
cannot be any liability on the Insurance Company, if the vehicle
did not have the permit. In the aforesaid decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that if the vehicle at the
time of accident did not have permit is a fundamental statutory
infraction and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the
compensation and recover from the owner of the vehicle. In the
case on hand, admittedly there was a permit to the vehicle in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
question and the vehicle was plied beyond the permitted area.
Hence the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred
supra are not applicable to the case on hand. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the cases referred supra held that if the
vehicle involved in the accident had a valid permit and plied
beyond the permitted area, the Insurance Company is liable.
Considering the same, we are of the considered view that the
Tribunal committed an error in saddling liability on the owner of
the vehicle. We accordingly modify the impugned judgment and
award by directing the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation by fixing liability on it.
11. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹5,000/-
by not considering the actual family pension received by the
dependents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen
C. Rebello (Mrs) and others v. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation and another8 held that family
pension, provident fund, cash balance, shares, fixed deposits
etc., cannot be termed as a pecuniary advantage. Similar view
(1999) 1 SCC 90
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
is also taken in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Birendra and others9 considering the enunciation
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the
considered view that the Tribunal erred in deducting the family
pension and arriving the income of the deceased.
12. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that
the deceased was aged about 64 years at the time of accident
and he was drawing monthly pension of ₹16,583/- and the
claimants are dependents. Considering the aforesaid fact, we
recalculate the compensation as under:
Amount
Sl.No. Particulars (in ₹)
Loss of dependency
Rs.16,583/- (income of the
deceased) x 4/5 x 12 x 5) 7,95,984/-
2 Loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000/- x 7) 2,80,000/-
3 Conventional heads (loss of estate 30,000/-
and funeral expenses and
transportation of dead body)
Total 11,05,984/-
(2020) 11 SCC 356
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
13. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.101652/2020 and MFA
No.102615/2015 are allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal
is modified to the extent that the claimants would
be entitled total compensation of ₹11,05,984/-
(Rupees eleven lakh five thousand nine hundred
and eighty-four only) as against ₹2,50,000/-.
(iii) The compensation amount shall carry interest @
6% per annum from the date of petition till the
payment is made.
(iv) The Insurance Company to pay the entire
compensation amount along with interest to the
claimants within six weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be
made as per the award of the Tribunal.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB
HC-KAR
(vi) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted
back along with records to the Tribunal, forthwith.
(vii) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
CLK /CT-AN
