Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Heena Kausar W/O. Irshad on 24 November, 2025
-1-
MFA No.100409/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100409 OF 2014
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM,
NOW R/BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
SHRI V.V. MUTALIK DESAI
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MTP HUB SRINATH COMPLEX,
NCM HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. HEENA KAUSAR
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
HM
W/O. IRSHAD AHEMAD ANGOLKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
R/O. ANGOL BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.
2025.11.25
10:12:35 +0530
2. KUMAR SALIHA D/O. IRSHAD AHEMAD ANGOLKAR
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
SINCE MINOR R/BY HER M/G RESPONDENT NO.1
NATURAL MOTHER SMT. HEENA KAUSAR
W/O. IRSHAD AHEMAD ANGOLKAR
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ANGOL BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM.
3. KUMARI HAUMATAJ D/O. IRSHAD AHEMAD ANGOLKAR
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
-2-
MFA No.100409/2014
SINCE MINOR R/BY RESPONDENT NO.1
R/O. ANGOL BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM.
4. KUMARI SABATASNEEM D/O. IRSHAD AHEMAD
ANGOLKAR
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
SINCE MINOR R/BY RESPONDENT NO.1
R/O. ANGOL BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM.
5. MASABBI W/O. MOHAMMED RASOOL ANGOLKAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. ANGOL BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM.
6. NAUSHAD S/O. ABDUL RAHEMAN SHAIKHJI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSIENSS
R/O. H.NO. 183, JERE GALLI,
ANGOL BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.
7. SHRI ASHRAF S/O. ABDUL RAHEMAN SHAIKHIJI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.183, JERE GALLI,
ANGOL BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD OF RS.7,42,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST PER ANNUM
PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER
FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT BELGAUM IN
MVC NO.2349/2011 DATED 13.11.2013 WITH COSTS AND
INTERESTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
10.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
MFA No.100409/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
The appellant/insurer has filed this appeal under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,
'Act') challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.
No.2349/2011 dated 13.11.2013 on the file of Fast Track
Court-III and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short,
'Tribunal') on the grounds of liability and quantum of
compensation.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience
and clarity.
3. Claimants being the wife, children and mother of
deceased Irshad Ahemad Angolkar, who died in a motor
vehicle accident that had taken place on 04.10.2008 at
about 21.30 hours near firefighter office on Belagavi-
Khanapur road when Irshad Ahemad Angolkar was the
inmate of the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365
along with two others. Due to this accident, husband of
claimant No.1 succumbed to injuries on 07.10.2008 when
he was taking on the way to hospital in Bengaluru.
4. The case of claimants in nutshell is that
claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of
deceased and were fully dependant upon the deceased for
their livelihood. They would contend that deceased was
running grocery shop at Angol, Belagavi and was self-
employed, earning ₹.10,000/- per month from the said
business, he was aged about 40 years at the time of
accident and hence, claimed compensation under different
heads.
5. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1-owner of
auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 filed his
objection statement, wherein he denied the petition
averments in toto in respect of the age, occupation of the
deceased, the manner in which accident happened and his
involvement in causing the accident. He denied the entire
case in toto. He further contended that if the Tribunal
comes to the conclusion that claimants are entitled for
compensation, then the auto rickshaw in question is insured
with respondent No.3 and hence prayed for saddling the
liability on respondent No.3 and to dismiss the petition
against him.
6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.2-owner of
auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822 filed his
objection statement wherein he denied the petition
averments in toto in respect of the age, occupation of
deceased, the manner in which accident happened and his
involvement in causing the accident. He denied the entire
case in toto and further contended that police have filed
false charge sheet against him and hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
7. Respondent No.3-insurer of auto rickshaw
bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 filed its objection statement,
wherein it denied the averments made in petition in toto
and further contended that police have filed charge-sheet
against driver of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822
and thus, the auto-rickshaw which is insured with it is not
involved in the accident. It further took contention that
only if the claimants able to establish the involvement of
said auto-rickshaw in the accident, then its liability, if any,
is subject to the validity or legality of the permit, driving
licence of the driver. He is entitled to take defence under
Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
8. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was
examined as P.W.1, two witnesses are examined as P.W.2
and P.W.3 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.12 and closed
their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents,
R.W.1 was examined apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.3.
9. After recording evidence of both sides, hearing
arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the claimants have proved the accident that
had taken place when the deceased was traveling in the
auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 and because
of rash and negligent driving of driver of the said auto
rickshaw, the accident happened and saddled the liability on
respondent No.3 by granting compensation of ₹.7,42,000/-
with interest at 6% per annum under following heads:
Towards loss of dependency due to death of Irshad ₹.6,72,000/-
Angolkar
Towards loss of estate ₹.20,000/-
Towards loss of filial love and affection ₹.20,000/-
Towards loss of consortium ₹.20,000/-
Towards funeral expenses, transportation of dead ₹.10,000/-
body etc.
Total ₹.7,42,000/-
10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
appellant-insurer has filed this appeal.
11. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Rajashekhar S
Arani would submit that the accident was not happened due
to the involvement of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.No.KA-
22/A-1365, but auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822
was involved and it was not covered with insurance. But the
alleged auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.No.KA-22/A-1365 is
covered with insurance and hence the claimants in collusion
with respondents No.1 and 2 have filed false claim petition
against this vehicle. This respondents No.1 and 2 are none
other than brothers and respondent No.1 is owner of auto
rickshaw bearing Regn.No.No.KA-22/A-1365, whereas
respondent No.2 is owner of auto rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-22/9822. Hence, the insurer is not liable to pay
the compensation.
12. In this regard, he relied on the MLC register and
other relevant documents of the Tribunal. Hence, prayed for
allowing the appeal.
13. Even after service of notice, respondents No.5 to
7 have not contested this appeal. Respondent No.5 is
mother of deceased. Respondents No.6 & 7 are the alleged
owners of both auto rickshaws.
14. Respondents No.1 to 4-wife and children of
deceased are represented by their counsel Sri
Mallikarjunaswamy B Hiremath. Learned counsel appearing
for respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that by examining
the relevant materials, the Tribunal properly comes to the
conclusion that the claimants have proved the accident and
rashness and negligence on the part of its driver. Even
though, charge-sheet is filed against driver of the auto
rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822, the materials
produced before the Tribunal clearly establish that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365.
The Tribunal has properly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence in that regard. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of appeal by confirming the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.
15. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
verifying appeal papers along with original records, the
points that would arise for consideration are:
"1. Whether the appellant/insurer proves that
saddling liability on insurer along with owner of
the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.No.KA-22/A-
1365 (respondent No.1 in the original petition and
respondent No.7 in this case) is erroneous, even
though, the charge-sheet is filed against driver of
the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on higher side?"
- 10 -
16. My finding on the above points is in "negative"
for the following reasons:
17. The facts alleged in the petition are that the
husband of claimant No.1 was the inmate of auto rickshaw
bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 and when the said auto
rickshaw came near the firefighters' office on 04.10.2008 at
about 21.30 hours, it turtle and because of that the
husband of claimant No.1 has sustained severe injuries;
immediately he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Belagavi and
thereafter while he was shifting to Bengaluru for further
treatment, on the way he succumbed to the injuries on
07.10.2008.
18. It is further averred that in the complaint, the
auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 is mentioned
and accordingly case is registered in Crime No.191/2008.
However, after investigation, the charge-sheet is filed
against auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822. Hence,
owners of both vehicles were made as respondent No.1 & 2.
- 11 -
19. It is to be noted here that in the complaint, the
auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 is mentioned
and accordingly case is registered in Crime No.191/2008
alleging the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337,
and 338 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 134 read with
187 of Motor vehicles Act. After registration of the case
against this auto rickshaw, on 6.10.2008, the spot
panchanamma was drafted. In the said panchanamma
vehicle number was not mentioned; whereas spot sketch as
per Ex.P.4 was prepared. In that spot sketch, vehicle
number was mentioned as KA-22/9822. Before that, vehicle
No.KA-22/A-1365 was written and A-1365 was strike off.
Subsequently, the charge-sheet was filed against the driver
of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822. In the
criminal case after recording evidence, the learned JMFC
acquitted the accused that he was not involved in the
accident.
20. Based on the finding of Criminal Court, the
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that even though
- 12 -
charge-sheet was filed against the auto rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-22/9822, said auto rickshaw was not involved in
the accident, but auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-
1365 was involved.
21. Respondent No.2 who is the owner of auto
rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822 was examined as
R.W.1 and he admitted that charge-sheet was filed against
him and he faced criminal trial, but he was acquitted in the
said case.
22. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 i.e., owner of auto
rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 and insurer are not
examined in this case. Only the policy of auto rickshaw
bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 is produced and marked as
Ex.R.2.
23. In this case, apart from claimant No.1, two more
witnesses are examined. One of them was the inmate of the
auto rickshaw (P.W.3) and another one had seen the
accident (P.W.2) when he was standing near firefighter's
office. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion
- 13 -
that auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 was not
involved in the accident. Except that, nothing serious was
elicited from his cross-examination.
24. P.W.3 is one Gouslal S/o Chandsab Balekundri.
Ex.R.3 is the wound certificate of this P.W.3 issued by the
BIMS, District Hospital, Belagavi. According to it, this P.W.3
has taken treatment on 05.10.2008 at 01.20 a.m. He also
sustained some fractures and other injuries in the same
accident. He has not stated the auto rickshaw number at
the time of giving history of the incident before doctor but
has only stated that while going in an auto rickshaw near
Bridge, the accident happened. However, according to the
case of prosecution, the accident occurred near firefighters'
office, but not at the place mentioned in Ex.R.3.
25. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence
in detail, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the auto
rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 is involved and not
auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9822. Some of the
witnesses who have given evidence in criminal case were
- 14 -
examined. Furthermore, the depositions of some of those
witnesses are marked in this claim petition.
26. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence
produced before the Tribunal, the learned JMFC has
acquitted the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-22/9822 on the ground that said auto-rickshaw
was not involved in the accident. On perusal of the oral and
documentary evidence, the name of auto rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-22/9822 was not mentioned in complaint, FIR
and also the vehicle number is not at all mentioned in the
panchanama. Only for the first time, in spot panchanama,
the auto rickshaw number KA-22/9822 is mentioned. Why
and how, the IO came to know about said vehicle is not
explained.
27. As discussed above, already there was some
striking and overwriting in this sketch, which is not properly
explained. No reason is assigned by the Investigating
Officer to mention the auto rickshaw No.KA-22/9822 in the
charge-sheet.
- 15 -
28. The insurer has not made any efforts to find out
that the auto rickshaw in question is not involved in
accident. Only because charge-sheet is filed against another
auto rickshaw, respondent No.3 cannot contend that the
vehicle to which insurance was valid at the time of accident
was not involved in the accident. This is more so, as in the
complaint and FIR name of said vehicle is mentioned.
Generally, the vehicle which involved in the accident, its
number will be mentioned in the panchanama, but the same
was not mentioned in the instant case
29. Furthermore, as per Investigating Officer, both
panchanama and spot sketch were prepared at the spot on
same day. But only spot panchanama was signed by
panchas and spot sketch was not signed by panchas. Thus,
it is the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-1365 was
involved in the accident and not the other one. Hence, the
contention of insurer that wrongly the Tribunal has saddled
liability on respondents No. 1 and 3 cannot be accepted.
- 16 -
30. Considering all these facts, rightly, the Tribunal
has come to the conclusion that respondents No.1 and 3 are
liable to pay compensation and not respondent No.2.
Hence, it needs no interference.
31. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of
deceased at ₹.6,000/- per month, but no document is
produced to prove his income at that time. Under those
circumstances, relying on KSLSA guidelines, as the accident
occurred in the year 2008, ₹.4,250/- was to be taken as the
notional income of deceased. To this income, 25% is to be
added as future prospects as per the judgment in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
However, it was not added by the Tribunal. Hence, if income
of deceased is taken into consideration even at ₹.4,250/-
and if 25% is added to it, it amounts to ₹.5,313/-. The
notional monthly income of the deceased would be
₹.5,313/-. The appropriate multiplier would be 15
considering the age of the deceased. Since there are five
- 17 -
dependants, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the compensation
payable under the head loss of dependency would be
₹.7,17,255/- (₹.5,313 x 12 x 15 x 3/4th).
32. Even the Tribunal has not granted loss of
consortium to all the petitioners. Hence, the compensation
that would have been awarded to the claimants will be
much more compared to the amount which is already
granted by the Tribunal. There is no appeal from the
claimants. Hence, I have no other option but to confirm the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
33. In view of my findings on point Nos.1 & 2, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1) Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is dismissed by confirming the judgment
and award passed in M.V.C. No.2349/2011 dated
13.11.2013 on the file of Fast Track Court-III and
Additional MACT, Belagavi;
- 18 -
2) No order as to costs;
3) The amount which is already in deposit be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
4) Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH
CT-CMU, LIST NO.:
