Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance vs Shabana D/O. Mahububsab Dharwad on 2 September, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
MFA No. 101905 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
M.F.A. NO. 101905 OF 2024 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
R. M. JOSHI BUILDING,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020,
NOW R/BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHABANA D/O. MAHUBUBSAB DHARWAD,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BIRABAND ONI, NEAR MASQUE,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024.
2. MR. SUBHAS S/O. LAGAMAPPA PADALLI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI R/O. A/P. NAGANUR, TQ. GOKAK,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, DIST. BELAGAVI-591224.
Dharwad Bench
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS
PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBBALLI, IN
M.V.C. NO.622/2022 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
MFA No. 101905 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed in
MVC No.622/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Addl. MACT, Hubballi (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on
27.07.2022, the deceased-Fairuj Khan was riding a motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-63-J-7416, while he was proceeding
from the Biraband Oni, Old Hubballi to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi,
at that time, a Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35-B-
7331, driven by its driver from Galidurgamma Temple towards
KIMS Hubballi, in a rash and negligent manner and while
overtaking other vehicle, dashed to the motorcycle of the
deceased. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Due
to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have suffered
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
HC-KAR
both emotional and financial dependency. Hence, they filed claim
petition seeking compensation.
3. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contested the
proceedings by filing separate written statement and denied the
averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2 denied
the nature of accident, avocation and income of the deceased
and contended that due to the negligent riding of the deceased,
who is the rider of the motorcycle, the accident in question had
occurred and at the time of accident he was not possessing valid
and effective driving license to ride the vehicle. It is also
contended that just to get compensation, the claimants have
falsely filed the claim petition. Hence, the claimants are not
entitled to any compensation as the deceased rider himself was
responsible for the accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
4. The claimant No.2 examined herself as PW1 and got
marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P12. The respondent did not
examine any witnesses, but with the consent they got marked
Ex.R1.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
HC-KAR
5. The Tribunal on scrutiny of entire material available
on record, allowed the claim petition by awarding total
compensation of Rs.19,22,670/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization and saddled 90% liability
on the appellant - Insurance Company. Being aggrieved, the
insurance company is in the appeal before this Court.
6. Sri.Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for the
appellant - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error by saddling 90% liability on the appellant -
Insurance Company and 10% on the deceased, who is the rider
of the motor cycle. It is contended that the Tribunal without
taking note of the fact that the deceased, who is the rider of the
motor cycle was not holding an effective driving license to ride
the vehicle as on the date of alleged accident and the deceased
is also charge sheeted under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') saddled 90% liability
on the Insurance Company. It is further contended that the
owner of the motor vehicle handed over the vehicle to a person
who did not hold a license to ride the vehicle and has violated
provision of Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
HC-KAR
(hereinafter referred to as the 'MV Act'). Hence, the Tribunal
without considering these aspects and the evidence available on
record saddled 90% liability on the Insurance Company which is
erroneous and contrary to the settled principle of law. It is also
contended that the Tribunal has also committed an error in
awarding higher compensation under the head of loss of
dependency and other heads. Further, the Tribunal erred in
considering that the claimant No.2 is dependent, whereas,
claimant No.2 is the sister of the deceased and she cannot be
considered as dependent. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, Sri.Anjaneya M, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the award passed
by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal considering the
material evidence available on record and charge sheet material
has rightly saddled the liability on the Insurance Company which
does not call for any interference in this appeal. Hence, he seeks
to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
HC-KAR
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would
arise for our consideration in this appeal is whether the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any
interference in this appeal?
9. Answer to the above point would be in the 'partly
affirmative' for the following reasons:
10. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the
occurrence of the accident on 27.07.2022 resulting in death of
Sri.Fairuj Khan. It is also not in dispute that the offending
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35-D-7331 was insured with
the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the legal heirs of the
deceased have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV
Act.
11. Insofar as quantum of compensation, the contention
of the insurance company is that the Tribunal has awarded
higher compensation. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and
proper compensation which is unaltered.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
HC-KAR
12. Insofar as liability is concerned, the contention of the
Insurance Company is that at the time of accident the rider of
the motor cycle was not holding valid and effective driving
license to ride the motor cycle and he is also charge sheeted
under Sections 3 and 181 of the MV Act. The Tribunal taking note
of the fact that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid
and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and
the charge sheet is also filed against the deceased rider, has
saddled 10% liability on the deceased rider by recording the
finding that the deceased rode the bike without any driving
license and without following the law of nation and it is a penal
act and if it is allowed, no person would want to take driving
license from the competent authority. Though non-possessing of
valid driving license ipso-facto would not lead to conclusion that
the deceased rider was negligent. The perusal of the complaint,
panchanama and the charge sheet would indicate that the
deceased rider of the motor cycle was also negligent and
contributed to the accident in question. Considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record and also taking note of the fact
that the deceased was riding two wheeler and the offending
vehicle was tipper lorry which is a big vehicle, we are of the view
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
HC-KAR
that the apportionment of contributory negligence is required to
be modified and accordingly, we hold that the deceased rider has
contributed to the accident to the extent of 20% and the driver
of the tipper lorry to the extent of 80% and to the aforesaid
extent the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal with
regard to the liability of the Insurance Company is modified.
Insofar as contention that claimant No.2 is not a dependent of
the deceased rider is liable to be rejected as the pleading and
evidence on record indicate that claimant No.1 is the mother of
the deceased, she has died and claimant No.2 is the unmarried
sister of the deceased. In the cross examination, PW.1 has
stated that she is doing Beedi work in the home, that itself is not
sufficient to come to conclusion that PW.1 is not dependent on
the income of the deceased. Her evidence clearly demonstrates
that she is unmarried and the entire family was dependent on
the income of the deceased.
13. For the aforementioned reasons I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The Appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11269-DB
HC-KAR
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
08.02.2024 passed in MVC No.622/2022 by the
I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Hubballi is modified.
iii. The appellant is liable to pay compensation to
the extent of 80% to the claimants.
iv. Insofar as the quantum of compensation and
interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,
the same remains unaltered.
v. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted
back to the Tribunal.
vi. The appellant shall deposit the compensation
amount along with the interest before the
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks to the
extent of its liability.
vii. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
I.A's, if any, does not survive for consideration.
viii. Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RKM, ABK/CT-AN
