Karnataka High Court
Vijays/O Maruti Lavate And Anr vs Balasaheb S/O Bapusaheb Patil And Anr on 18 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3185
MFA No. 201871 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201871 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAY S/O MARUTI LAVATE,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
2. RANJANA
W/O VIJAY LAVATE,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RAJAPUT GALLI,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALASAHEB
Digitally signed S/O BAPUSAHEB PATIL,
by RAMESH AGE: 48 YEARS,
MATHAPATI OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH AT PRESENT RAJAPUR,
COURT OF TQ: SANGOLA,
KARNATAKA
DIST: SOLAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA - 413 307.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
HANAMSHETTY BUILDING,
GURUKUL ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3185
MFA No. 201871 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN
THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 18.06.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T.-VI, AT VIJAYAPURA, IN
M.V.C. NO.2241/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 18.06.2022
passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member M.A.C.T.-VI,
Vijayapura (for short, Tribunal) in MVC no.2241/2014, this
appeal is filed.
2. Sri Sanganagouda V.Biradar, learned counsel
submitted appeal was by claimants for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted, at 9:00 am on 20.02.2014
Gayatri was walking on side of Sangola-Mangalweda road, rider
of motorcycle bearing registration no.MH-45-V-0283, rode it in
rash and negligent manner and dashed against her causing
accident. She succumbed to injuries, during treatment. Her
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3185
HC-KAR
parents filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act,
against owner and insurer of motorcycle.
3. On contest, wherein only respondent no.2 - insurer
filed written statement urging various contentions and alleging
violation of policy conditions, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.2 examined herself and eye-
witness as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Insurer
examined its official as RW.1 and got marked insurance policy
as Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider,
vehicle was covered with insurance and owner and insurer
jointly and severally liable to pay `2,01,700/- as compensation.
Dissatisfied, claimants are in appeal.
5. It was submitted though death of claimants'
daughter - Gayatri, aged 6 years was not disputed, merely on
ground that post most examination report was not produced,
Tribunal awarded only medical expenses and rejected claim
petition insofar as loss of dependency. It was submitted, victim
was admitted to hospital for treatment on 20.02.2014,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3185
HC-KAR
discharged on 01.04.2014 and died about 23 days thereafter. It
was submitted in Ex.P.16, hospital had clearly mentioned that
discharge was not after recovery but as per request. In absence
of any material about some other cause for death than
accidental injuries, Tribunal ought to have inferred death was
on account of injuries sustained in an accident and awarded
compensation. Failure had resulted in impugned award and
same called for interference.
6. On other hand, Sri Rahul R. Asture, learned counsel
for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted,
Tribunal had given finding about failure to establish nexus
between death and injuries sustained in an accident on proper
appreciation of material on record. Therefore, award did not call
for interference.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
8. From above and since claimants are in appeal
seeking for enhancement of compensation, following point
would arise for consideration:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3185
HC-KAR
"Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?"
9. Since Tribunal allowed claim petition in part and
held insurer liable to compensation and insurer has not
preferred appeal, finding of Tribunal about occurrence of
accident, involvement of insured vehicle and liability of insurer
to pay compensation are not in dispute.
10. Tribunal rejected claim only insofar as loss of
dependency on ground that claimants had failed to establish
nexus between death and accidental injuries. Medical records
would reveal that claimant sustained diffused axonal and left
basal ganglionic bleed right clavicle fracture and was in hospital
from 20.02.2014 i.e., date of accident till her discharge on
01.04.2014. She died later on 27.05.2014 i.e., after 56 days.
Ex.P.16-Case-sheet clearly reveals that victim had not
recovered and was discharged on request. There is no material
to indicate that discharge was against medical advise or had
aggravated ailment or accelerated death indicative of
negligence on part of claimants. When it was not case of
insurer that death was on account of some other cause,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3185
HC-KAR
contents of Case Sheet - Ex.P.16 about treatment administered
would heap probabilities in favour of finding that death was on
account of injuries sustained in accident. Therefore, Tribunal
was not justified in denying claim towards loss of dependency.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishan Gopal and another
vs. Lala and others1 has held in case of death of minor,
claimants would be entitled to lump-sum compensation of
`5,00,000/- towards loss of dependency. Point for consideration
would therefore required to be answered in affirmative. Said
amount would be in addition to medical expenses of
`2,01,700/- awarded by Tribunal. Hence, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimants are held entitled for total
compensation of `7,01,700/- with interest at
6% per annum from date of claim petition till
realization.
iii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before
Tribunal within a period of six weeks.
iv. Direction issued by Tribunal regarding
apportionment, deposit and release shall be
2014 (1) SCC 244
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3185
HC-KAR
applied to enhanced compensation
proportionately.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
sn
