Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Suresh S/O Baburao Biradar Since ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
MFA No. 203828 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 203828 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR
S.B.TEMPLE ROAD, BRAHMAPUR
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH
Digitally signed S/O BABURAO BIRADAR
by SHIVALEELA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
DATTATRAYA AMENDED AS PER
UDAGI
Location: HIGH 1(a). SHANTABAI ORDER DATED
COURT OF W/O BABURAO
KARNATAKA 18.03.2025
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VILLAGE HUNJI-A
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR.
2. SANTOSH
S/O RAMRAO TAKLE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: VILLAGE HUNJI-A
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
MFA No. 203828 of 2024
HC-KAR
(OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE
BEARING NO. KA-39/K-0281)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADV., FOR R1(A);
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.05.2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AND MEMBER MACT BHALKI IN MVC NO.444/2014 BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for both sides, it is taken up for
final disposal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
This appeal is filed by appellant-Insurance Company
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the
judgment and award dated 28.05.2024 passed in MVC
No.444/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & Member
of MACT, Bhalki (for short, 'the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of claim petition
are as under:
That the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle
bearing No.KA-39/K-6330 from Bhalki to Hunji-A, on
11.05.2013 at about 9:00 a.m. when he reached near
Vivekanand Chowk, a motorcycle bearing No.KA-39/K-
0281 was ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent
manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against
the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to which the claimant
sustained severe injuries and he took treatment in
Hospital. The claimant filed claim petition. The Tribunal
assessed the compensation and passed the impugned
judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-
Insurance Company challenging quantum has filed the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal,
respondent No.1-claimant died on 10.06.2024 and his
legal representative has been brought on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondent
No.1(a)-claimant.
4. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance
Company would contend that as the claim for
compensation has been awarded for the injury, in view of
death of the injured, the legal representative is not
entitled to award amount contending that cause died with
the person. He further contended that when the disability
is less than 50%, the Tribunal has erred in awarding future
prospects. The Doctor has stated disability at 26% to the
whole body and he is not a treated doctor and the Tribunal
has erred in taking the disability at 30%. The
compensation awarded for pain and suffering; future
medical expenses; loss of amenities are on higher side.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
Hence seeks for reducing the same. With these he prayed
to allow the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1(a)-
claimant would contend that the claimant was alive as on
the date of the judgment passed by the Tribunal. The legal
heir is entitled only to such compensation which forms
part of the estate of the deceased. On that he places
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.
Kahlon alias Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased)
through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon
Gosakan and Another reported in (2022)13 SCC 494.
He further submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on all other heads is just and proper. With these
he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused the impugned judgment and other materials
placed on record.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
7. The date of accident is 11.05.2013. The
Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award on
28.05.2024 and the Insurance Company has filed the
present appeal on 10.12.2024. The claimant i.e.
respondent No.1 died on 10.06.2024. The claimant died
after passing of the judgment by the Tribunal and before
filing of the appeal by the Insurance Company. As on the
date of judgment of the Tribunal, the claimant was alive.
The award amount is accretion to the estate of the
claimant.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited vs. Kahlon alias Jasmail
Singh Kahlon (supra) has observed at paragraph Nos.8
to 15 and 19 thus:
"8. The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
Section 166(1) (a) of the Act provides for a statutory
claim for compensation arising out of an accident by
the person who has sustained the injury. Under
Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of
the property. In case of death, the legal
representatives of the deceased can pursue the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much
wider connotation than the conventional definition. If
the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, we
see no reason why the legal representatives cannot
pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of
the injured if he is deceased subsequently for
reasons other than attributable to the accident or
injuries under Clause 1(c) of Section 166. Such a
claim would be completely distinct from personal
injuries to the claimant and which may not be the
cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries
would undoubtedly abate with the death of the
injured. What would the loss of estate mean and
what items would be covered by it are issues which
has to engage our attention. The appellant has a
statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor
accident claim cases. This obligation cannot be
evaded behind the defence that it was available only
for personal injuries and abates on his death
irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the
deceased because of the injuries.
9. In Umedchand (supra), giving a broad liberal
interpretation to the provisions of the Act so that
legal representatives do not suffer injustice, it was
observed that the claim for personal injuries will not
survive on death of the injured unrelated to the
accident but the legal representatives could pursue
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
the claim for enhancement of the claim for loss of
the estate which would include expenditure on
medical expenses, travelling, attendant, diet,
doctor's fee and reasonable monthly annual accretion
to the estate for a certain period. It is trite that the
income which a person derives compositely forms
part of the expenditure on himself, his family and the
savings go to the estate. The unforeseen expenses
as aforesaid naturally have to be met from the estate
causing pecuniary loss to the estate.
10. In Maimuna Begum (supra) the defence under
Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on
the old English Common Law maxim "actio personalis
moritur cum persona" was rejected opining that it
would be unjust to nonsuit the heirs on that ground.
11. In Venkatesan (supra), the injured claimant
preferred an appeal dissatisfied, but was deceased
during the pendency of the appeal. Compensation
came to be awarded under the Act for loss of estate
keeping in mind the nature of the injuries, the
treatment, the expenditure incurred and loss of
income.
12. In Surpal Singh (supra), Justice K.S.
Radhakrishnan, C.J. (as he then was), observed that
the Act was a social welfare legislation providing for
compensation by award to people who sustain bodily
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
injuries or get killed. The grant of compensation had
to be expeditious as procedural technicalities could
not be allowed to defeat the just purpose of the act.
The Courts in construing social welfare legislations
had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction which
fulfils the policy of the legislation favorable to those
in whose interest the Act has been passed. Judicial
discipline demanded that the words of a remedial
statutes be construed so far as they reasonably
admit so as to secure that relief contemplated by the
statute and it shall not be denied to the class
intended to be relieved. Rejecting the maxim of
"actio personalis moritur cum persona" on the
premise that it was an injury done to the person and
the claim abated with his demise it was observed:
"11. The question as to whether injury was
personal or otherwise is of no significance so
far as the wrong doer is concerned and he is
obliged to make good the loss sustained by the
injured. Legal heirs and legal representatives
would have also suffered considerable mental
pain and agony due to the accident caused to
their kith and kin. Possibly they might have
looked after their dear ones in different
circumstances, which cannot be measurable in
monetary terms. We are therefore in full
agreement with the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Gujarat
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
State Road Transport Corporation's case
(supra) that even after death of the injured,
the claim petition does not abate and right to
sue survives to his heirs and legal
representatives."
13. This view has subsequently been followed in a
decision authored by brother Justice M.R. Shah J.,
(as he then was) in Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel vs.
Joseph Francis Mewan and Others, 2015 (2) GLH
499, holding as follows:
"10....Considering the aforesaid decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil (supra); decisions
of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Jenabai Widow of Abdul Karim Musa
(supra) and in the case of Amrishkumar
Vinodbhai (supra); and aforesaid two decisions
of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan
High Court, we are of the opinion that maxim
"actio personalis moritur cum persona" on
which Section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act
(sic Indian Succession Act) is based cannot
have an applicability in all actions even in an
case of personal injuries where damages flows
from the head or under the head of loss to the
estate. Therefore, even after the death of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
injured claimant, claim petition does not abate
and right to sue survive to his heirs and legal
representatives in so far as loss to the estate is
concerned, which would include personal
expenses incurred on the treatment and other
claim related to loss to the estate. Under the
circumstances, the issue referred to the
Division Bench is answered accordingly.
Consequently, it is held that no error has been
committed by the learned Tribunal in
permitting the heirs to be brought on record of
the claim petition and permitting the heirs of
the injured claimant who died subsequently to
proceed further with the claim petition.
However, the claim petition and even appeal
for enhancement would be confine to the claim
for the loss to the estate as observed
hereinabove."
14. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Joti Ram vs. Chamanlal, AIR
1985 P&H 2 and the Madras High Court in
Thailammai vs. A.V. Mallayya Pillai, 1991 ACJ 185
(Mad).
15. The view taken in Kanamma (supra) and Uttam
Kumar (supra) that the claim would abate is based
on a narrow interpretation of the Act which does not
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
commend to us. The reasoning of the Gujarat High
Court is more in consonance with aim, purpose and
spirit of the Act and furthers its real intent and
purpose which we therefore approve.
19. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent
judicial view taken by more than one High Court that
loss of estate would include expenditure on
medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee,
etc. including income and future prospects which
would have caused reasonable accretion to the
estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to
be met from and depleted the estate of the injured,
subsequently deceased."
9. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the legal representative of the claimant i.e.
respondent No.1(a) is entitled to compensation amount
except towards pain and suffering.
10. The accident has taken place in the year 2013
and as per chart notional income is Rs.7,000/- and the
Tribunal has taken the said income and also applied
multiplier as '18' as the age of the claimant was 24 years
as on the date of the accident. The Doctor, who examined
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
the injured PW.2 has issued Ex.P11-disability certificate
stating that the claimant has sustained 26% of disability to
the whole body. Even though PW.2 is not the treated
doctor, the Tribunal has erred in taking the disability at
30%. The claimant has sustained fracture of right femur.
Considering the Ex.P11-disability certificate issued by
PW.2-Doctor, disability to be taken as 13% as against
30% taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken future
prospects. As disability is less than 50%, the future
prospects are not required to be taken. In view of the
above, the claimant is entitled to loss of future income as
under:
Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 13% = Rs.1,96,560/-.
11. The Tribunal has rightly taken the medical
expenses as Rs.68,418/-. The Tribunal has awarded
future medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground
that implants are fixed and for removal of the same, future
medical expenses are required to be awarded. The said
future medical expenses awarded are on higher side and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
reasonable expenses for removable of implants would be
Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to future
medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-.
12. Due to the injuries sustained the claimant was
admitted in Hospital for six days and he was advised for
rest. Considering the same, the claimant is entitled for loss
of income during laid up period for three months in a sum
of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 3) as against Rs.14,000/-
as awarded by the Tribunal.
13. The Tribunal has awarded loss of amenities in a
sum of Rs.3,00,000/- it is on higher side and the claimant
is entitled to loss of amenities in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
14. Apart form loss of amenities, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
expectation of life and i.e. not to be awarded separately as
loss of amenities is awarded.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
15. The claimant was admitted in Hospital for six
days, therefore, he is entitled to compensation towards
conveyance and attendant charges, food, diet in a sum of
Rs.6,000/-.
16. In view of death of the claimant, there is no
need to award compensation for pain and suffering, which
has been awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
17. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to
total compensation as under:
Amount Amount
Sl.
Heads awarded by the awarded by
No
Tribunal this Court
1. Loss of future income Rs.6,49,040/- Rs.1,96,560/-
2. Medical expenses ---- Rs.68,418/-
3. Loss of income during ---- Rs.21,000/-
laid up period
4. Future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.30,000/-
5. Loss of amenities Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Attendant and Rs.94,918/- Rs.6,000/-
6. conveyance charges,
etc.,
7. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- ----
8. Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/- ----
Total Rs.13,43,958/- Rs.3,71,978/-
Reduction Rs.9,71,980/-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
18. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed
in-part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 28.05.2024
passed in MVC No.444/2014 by the Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC & Member of MACT,
Bhalki is modified as under:
a) The claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,71,978/-
against Rs.13,43,958/- as awarded by
the Tribunal along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization.
b) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the said award amount along
with interest, if it is not already
deposited; if any excess amount is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5734
HC-KAR
deposited, the Insurance Company is
entitled to refund of the same.
c) The entire award amount along with
interest is ordered to be released in
favour of respondent No.1(a)-claimant
i.e. legal representative of claimant-
Suresh s/o Baburao Biradar after due
identification/verification.
d) The amount in deposit, if any, is
ordered to be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SDU
Ct;Vk
