Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mallamma W/O S Mallappa vs Mohammed Ansari S/O Hasamuddin Ansari on 4 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
MFA No. 103317 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103317 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O. S.MALLAPPA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. HOSAKERI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
2. S. MALLAPPA
S/O. SANJEEVAPPA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HOSAKERI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
3. VEERESH @ VEERESH SARAYAD
S/O. SARAYADA MALLAPPA,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. HOSAKERI (DASAMAPURA) VILLAGE,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR H.B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
Digitally signed by ...APPELLANTS
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR (BY SRI. AMARE GOUDA, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2025.09.10
12:32:40 +0530
AND:
1. MOHAMMED ANSARI
S/O. HASAMUDDIN ANSARI,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC. DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
REGN NO.MH-40/N-6264,
R/O. AT POST UMBARKHED,
TALUK: CHALISGOAN, JALAGAON DISTRCT,
MAHARASTRA-445206.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
MFA No. 103317 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. MOHAMMED SAMEER, SHEK
OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO.MH-40/N-6264,
R/O. SUMTHANA, GUMGAON POST,
HINGNA TALUK,
NAGAPUR DISTRICT-442902.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING,
9TH FLOOR, NEW INDIA CENTER,
17/4 COOPARAGE ROAD, MUMBAI,
NEAREST OFFICE AT STATION ROAD,
HOSAPETE,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.K. SOUDHAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, HOSAPETE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
MFA No. 103317 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as 'M.V.Act, 1988" for short) by the petitioners being
dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by Tribunal in
MVC No.230/2015 dated 06.07.2018 by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT-IV, Hosapete.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal,
are as follows:
On 12.02.2014, at about 7.50 p.m., a KSRTC bus
bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-913, due to mechanical defect, the
bus was stationed on NH-7 Road, near Venkatagiri Kote,
Swamy daba. The deceased was lying below the said bus to
carryout its repair. At that time, the driver of the bus had
taken all precautions by putting the indicator light, showing
visibility of the stationed bus for repairs to other moving
vehicles on the road. At that time, a lorry bearing
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
Reg.No.MH-40/N-6264 came in a rash and negligent
manner, and dashed against the stationed bus from the
backside. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the injures. The petitioners being the legal
representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition
seeking compensation on the ground that the deceased was
the only bread earner in the family, and they have
depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, prays to
allow the claim petition.
3. The owner and the driver of the offending lorry
despite service of notice remained unrepresented, and they
were placed ex-parte.
4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections admitting that the offending lorry was covered
with the policy from 25.11.2013 to 24.11.2014. It is
contended that the driver of the offending lorry did not
possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition
against the Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
6. To substantiate their case, petitioner No.2 was
examined as P.W.1, and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to
P6. The official of the Insurance Company was examined as
R.W.1 and RTO Office was examined as R.W.2 and 7
documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R7. The Tribunal,
after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence
allowed the claim petition in part with costs, and awarded
compensation of Rs.21,40,188/-. It is held that respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation, and the claim petition against the Insurance
Company was dismissed. The petitioners, being dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and dismissal of the claim petition against the Insurance
Company, have filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the driver of the offending lorry possessed a valid and
effective driving license, and as of the date of the accident,
the license was expired, and subsequently, the license was
renewed. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an
error in fastening the liability only on the driver and owner
of the offending lorry. He submits that once if the driver
possessed a driving license, and if it is expired, there is no
bar to drive the vehicle. To buttress his arguments, he
placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this court in the case of NAGAPPA @ NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER
VS RAVI KUPALURU AND OTHERS IN MFA NO.103680/2015
C/W MFA NO.103681/2015 disposed of on 08.02.2019.
He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in
dismissing the claim petition, and dismissal of the claim
petition against the Insurance Company is contrary to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
aforesaid judgment rendered by this court. He submits that
the deceased was working in KSRTC, and was getting a
salary of Rs.13,595/- p.m. He also submits that the father
of the deceased was aged about 64 years and mother was
aged about 55 years. The deceased was having an
unmarried brother, who is studying in the college. They
were totally depending on the income of the deceased. He
submits that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd
towards personal expenses of the deceased, but on the
contrary, the Tribunal deducted 50%. He submits that the
deduction is contrary to the proposition laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD., VS NANU RAM AND OTHERS reported in
2018 ACJ 2782. He submits that, in the said case, the
Hon'ble Apex Court deducted 1/3rd. Hence, on these
grounds he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company submits that as of the date
of the accident the driver of the offending lorry did not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
possess a valid and effective driving license. As of the date
of the accident, the license was expired, and subsequently,
the driver got renewed the license after 2½ years. He
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of RAM BABU TIWARI VS UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND OTHERS reported in 2008 ACJ
2654. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this court in the case of SMT.PADMA AND
OTHERS VS RMANJALI NAIDU AND OTHERS IN MFA
NO.100226/2016 C/W MFA NO.100730/2016 disposed
of on 22.04.2021. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
10. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The
points that arise for consideration is regarding the liability
and the quantum of compensation.
11. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident, death of the deceased in said road traffic
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver.
Further, the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the
offending lorry. The Tribunal placing reliance on Ex.P6 has
rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the lorry by its driver.
Regarding liability.
12. Respondent-Insurance Company has taken a
specific defense that as of the date of the accident the
driver of the offending lorry did not possess a valid driving
license. There is breach of the policy conditions, and the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as
claimed by the petitioners. Admittedly, the driver of the
offending lorry was having license, and as of the date of the
accident, it was expired. Subsequently, after 2½ years, the
driver got renewed the license. The said issue is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
in the case of NAGAPPA (SUPRA). This court in paragraph 27
held as follows:
"27.The Co-Ordinate Bench has held after referring
to various judgments that even if there is no renewal
endorsement, it cannot be said that the person driving
the vehicle was not a licensed driver. It is not a case
where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who
does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the
driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured
was having a valid driving licence duly granted by
transport authority. Merely because of expiry of the
period of licence and the omission of the driver to get the
licence renewed, it cannot be said by any stretch of
imagination that there is breach of condition of policy for
which insurance company can be exonerated from the
liability. The driver was authorised to drive a transport
vehicle and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to
the licensed driver and, therefore, the insurance company
cannot absolve itself from the liability. Therefore, it is
clear that mere fact that the driver of the vehicle had not
got his driving licence renewed on the date of the
accident and got it renewed subsequently would not
amount to breach of condition of the policy as it cannot be
said that there was violation of the condition of the policy.
Further, in view of the above findings, the Division Bench
also held that the question of ordering any recovery of the
amount by the insurance company from the insurer did
not arise."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in RAM BABU TIWARI (SUPRA). The Division Bench in
NAGAPPA (SUPRA) referring the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, has held that the Insurance Company is liable
to pay the compensation amount. Further, the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the
judgment of Division Bench in the case of SMT.PADMA
(SUPRA). Admittedly, in the said case, the police have filed
a charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry
under Section 3 of the M.V.Act. Admittedly, in the instant
case, the police have not filed a charge sheet against the
driver of the offending lorry under Section 3 of the M.V.Act.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
above said matter was settled in a Lok Adalath and the
Insurance Company was directed to deposit the
compensation amount. The said fact has not been disputed
by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. In view
of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
petitioner, question of considering the proposition laid down
in the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company in the case of SMT.PADMA (SUPRA)
would not arise. Hence, considering the proposition laid
down by the Division Bench in NAGAPPA (SUPRA), the
liability is fastened on the owner and the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
Regarging quantum.
14. The deceased was aged about 26 years as of the
date of the accident. He was working as a mechanic in
KSRTC, Chikkaballaur Division, and was drawing a salary of
Rs.13,595/- p.m. The said fact has not been seriously
disputed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal was
justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.13,595/-. While deducting personal expenses of the
deceased, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income of
the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA
(SUPRA) in paragraph 8.2, held as follows:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
"With respect to the issue of deduction from the inc
ome of the deceased, the Insurance Company
contended that the deduction ought to have been
½, and not 1/3rd, since the deceased was a bachelor.
This issue has been dealt with in paragraph 32 of
the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) wherein this Court
took the view that where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be
restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third.
Considering that the deceased was living in a
village, where he was residing with his aged father who
was about 65 years old, and Respondent No.2 an
unmarried sister, the High Court correctly considered
them to be dependents of the deceased, and made a
deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased."
15. Admittedly, in the instant case, petitioner No.2 is
the father of the deceased, who was aged about 64 years.
Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased, who was
aged about 55 years, and petitioner No.3 is the unmarried
brother. They are all depending on the income of the
deceased. The Tribunal committed an error in deducting
50% towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Considering the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.13,595/-, and 50% must be added towards future
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
prospects, which comes to Rs.20,392/-. There are three
petitioners, 1/3rd is to be deducted, which comes to
Rs.13,595/-. The deceased was aged about 26 years, as of
the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable to the age
group is '17'. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.27,73,380/- (Rs.13,595/-x 12 x 17)
under the head loss of dependency. The petitioners are also
entitled to a compensation of Rs.48,000/- each, under the
head loss of consortium, Rs.36,000/- under the head
funeral expenses and loss of estate.
16. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to total
compensation, which is as follows:
Compensation
Particulars
amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 27,73,380
(Rs.13,595/-x 12x 17)
Loss of consortium (Rs.48,000
1,44,000
x 3)
Funeral expenses and loss of
36,000
Estate
Total 29,53,380
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and the award
dated 06.07.2018 passed in MVC
No.230/2015 by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge & MACT-IV, Hosapete is
hereby modified.
(iii) The petitioners are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.29,53,380/- as
against Rs.21,40,188/- awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation of
the amount.
(iv) Respondent Nos.2 i.e., the owner of the
offending lorry and respondent No.3, the
insurance company are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation
amount.
(v) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation with accrued
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11346
HC-KAR
interest within 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(vi) The Tribunal records, and the amount in
deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:PA
