Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Anita And Ors on 18 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
MFA No. 201624 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201624 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN PLAZA COMPLEX,
SVP CHOWK, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
1. ANITA
Location: HIGH W/O VYANKAT BIRAJADAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. VYANKAT
W/O KASHINATH BIRAJADAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
3. JYOTI
D/O VYANKAT BIRAJADAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
MFA No. 201624 of 2021
HC-KAR
BANGALE PLOT LOHARA,
TQ: LOHARA, DIST: OSMANABAD,
NOW RESIDING, NEAR OVER HEAD TANK,
OM NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
4. ISMAIL KADRI
S/O RAHAMUD KADRI,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY,
HASEGAON VILLAGE,
TQ: AUSA, DIST: LATUR,
MAHARASHTRA - 413 520.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. ALI MOHAMMED, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
V/O DATED 20.12.2021 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF THE MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2021 IN
MVC.NO.1266/2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, CJM, KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
MFA No. 201624 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)
The insurance company is in appeal assailing the
judgment and award dated 01.10.2021 in
MVC.No.1266/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, CJM, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal' for short), both on liability and quantum of
compensation granted.
2. A road traffic accident occurred on 14.11.2018,
when Ganesh S/o. Vyankat was proceeding from Chennai
to Solapur as a cleaner in lorry bearing registration
No.MH-10/Z-1190. The driver of the lorry drove at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of
the impact, the driver lost control of the vehicle, causing it
to overturn. In the said accident, Ganesh S/o. Vyankat
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The
claimants who are the parents and sister of the deceased,
filed the claim petition seeking compensation. They
contended that the deceased was employed as a cleaner
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
HC-KAR
and earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month
and they were financially dependent upon his income.
3. Respondent No.2 - insurance company denied
the averments made in the claim petition and also
disputed its liability to pay the compensation amount.
4. The claimants examined claimant No.1 as PW.1
and got marked Ex.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the
insurance company examined one witness as RW.1, but
did not choose to mark any documents.
5. The Tribunal upon considering the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred is
due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver
and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on
the spot. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the liability on
the insurance company and awarded compensation of
Rs.18,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of the petition till the date of realization.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
HC-KAR
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for
the claimants and perused the material on record.
7. Smt. Preethi Patil Melkundi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant - insurance company would
contend that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the
deceased was negligent and had contributed to the
occurrence of the accident. It is argued that contributory
negligence ought to have been attributed to the deceased.
In the absence of such a finding, the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by this Court.
The learned counsel further contends that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher
side, and therefore, requires modification.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants vehemently contended that FIR was registered
against the driver of the lorry and that the deceased being
a cleaner, could not have contributed to the accident,
hence, question of contributory negligence does not arise,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
HC-KAR
as contended by the insurance company - appellant
herein. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, after duly
considering the FIR, charge sheet, crime details and other
police records, which rightly establish the rash and
negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, has rightly held
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, fastening the
liability on the insurance company is justified, which
warrants no interference by this Court.
9. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides,
the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in
fastening the liability on the insurance
company and whether the compensation
awarded is just and reasonable?"
10. The Tribunal, while dealing with the issue of
negligence has considered the documents including the
FIR, statement, charge sheet and other police records
marked as per Ex.P1 to P6. Based on these materials, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
HC-KAR
Tribunal held that the charges were leveled against the
driver of the lorry involved in the accident. Accordingly,
negligence was rightly attributed to the driver of the lorry.
Upon consideration of both oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the
accident occurred is solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the lorry driver, which resulted in death of
Ganesh S/o. Vyankat. Therefore, the findings of the
Tribunal that there was no contributory negligence on part
of the deceased has been properly arrived at and warrants
no interference.
11. So far as the compensation awarded and
assessed by the Tribunal is concerned, it has awarded a
sum of Rs.17,76,600/- towards loss of dependency. In
arriving at this figure, the Tribunal considered the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.11,750/- per month, in the
absence of any documentary evidence to establish actual
income. This notional income was determined as per the
guidelines of High Court Legal Service Authority for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
HC-KAR
accidents occurring in the year 2018. As the deceased
was bachelor, 50% was rightly deducted towards personal
expenses. Considering the age of the deceased was 22
years, the Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier '18'.
Additionally, 40% was added towards future prospects as
per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi1. The calculation
of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is
therefore in consonance with settled law and is just and
proper.
12. Further the award of Rs.80,000/- under the
head of loss of consortium to the parents, and Rs.15,000/-
each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is also
just and proper. The Tribunal having considered the entire
matter in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, has
rightly awarded the compensation which warrants no
interference by this Court and point for consideration is
answered accordingly and we pass the following:
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3192-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby is
dismissed.
ii. The amount in deposit is remitted back to the
Tribunal.
iii. The trial Court records to be returned forthwith.
iv. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
MCR
