Karnataka High Court
The Authorized Signatory vs P Bheemalingappa S/O P.Lingappa on 26 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
MFA No. 102795 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102795 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., 4TH FLOOR,
ALANKAR PLAZA, PARK ROAD,
KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH
REP BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE,
CTS #172/171, V.A. KALBURGI
SQUARE, DESAI CROSS,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV)
AND:
1. P. BHEEMALINGAPPA S/O P.LINGAPPA
AGED 66 YEARS,
2. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR W/O BHEMMALINGAPPA
AGED 54 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR 3. SMT. P.BHAGYA W/O RAMAKRISHNA
Date: 2025.09.27 AGED 27 YEARS,
11:23:32 +0530
4. KUM VANI D/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED 8 YEARS,
5. KISHORE S/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED 6 YEARS,
R4 & R5 ARE MINORS, REP BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. BHAGYA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA RESPO. NO.3
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
MFA No. 102795 of 2014
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/O: T.BUDIHAL VILLAGE,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
6. VICTOR S/O BHUSHANA
AGE : 29 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY
BEARING REGISTRATION
NO. AP-04/X-6838
VELUGODU POST, INDIRA NAGAR,
KURNOOL DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH.
7. TALLAPU REDDY
S/O SIVA PRASAD REDDY
MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REGISTRATION NO. AP-04/X-6838,
R/O. H.NO.3-895, YMR COLONY,
PRODDUTOR, CUDDAPAH DIST.,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADV FOR R1 TO R3,
R4 & R5 ARE MINORS, R/BY R3,
NOTICE TO R6 & R7 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:01.07.2014, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.978/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.IX AT BELLARY, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.25,51,000/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
MFA No. 102795 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 passed
in MVC No.978/2010 by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-IX, Ballari ('Tribunal' for short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal
are as follows:
2.1. On 30.09.2009 at 07:30 a.m., while Ramakrishna -
the son of petitioners No.1 and 2, husband of petitioner No.3
and the father of minor petitioners No.4 and 5, was riding his
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-34/J-7479 along with milk cans
on the left side of Anantapur-Ballari road, at that time, the
driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-04/X-6838 drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle. As a result, said Ramakrishna fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. It is contended that the petitioner
has spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards the medical and other
incidental expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
HC-KAR
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking for
compensation on account of injuries sustained in a road traffic
accident.
3. During the pendency of the claim petition,
Ramakrishna died and his legal representatives were brought
on record.
4. Notice was issued to the owner and the driver of
the offending vehicle. Despite service of notice, they
remained unrepresented and were placed ex-parte.
5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim petition
and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of
the accident and prays to dismiss the claim petition against
the Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties,
framed the relevant issues.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
HC-KAR
7. To substantiate the case of the petitioners,
petitioner No.1 examined as PW-1, examined the Doctor as
PW-2, examined the Medical Records Technician as PW-3 and
marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. On the other hand,
the Insurance Company has not led any oral evidence, but
marked one document as Ex.R1 with consent.
8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded a compensation of Rs.25,51,000/- with costs and
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization and directed the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation amount. The claim petition, against the owner
and the driver of the offending vehicle, was dismissed.
9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company and learned counsel for the petitioners.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
HC-KAR
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that, the deceased petitioner has filed a claim petition
in the year 2010 and he passed away on 03.04.2012 i.e.,
during the pendency of the claim petition. He submits that,
the legal representatives were brought on record. The LRs are
not entitled for compensation under the head loss of
dependency. They are entitled only for compensation under
the head of incidental expenses. The compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on a higher side. He also submitted that,
the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as
Rs.10,500/-. In the absence income proof, the Tribunal ought
to have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority ('KSLSA' for
short). The accident occurred in 2009. The notional income
would be Rs.5,000/-. The notional income assessed by the
Tribunal is on a higher side. Hence, on these grounds he prays
to allow the appeal and reduce the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the
deceased petitioner supported the impugned judgment and
the award and prays to dismiss the appeal,
13. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point
that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of
compensation.
14. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the
accident and the deceased petitioner having suffered injuries.
The deceased petitioner filed a claim petition in 2010, he
passed away on 03.04.2012 and the LRs were brought on
record. Despite the death, the LRs of the deceased can pursue
the claim, since the 'property' under the Motor Vehicles Act
has a much wider connotation than its conventional definition
and includes the estate left behind by the deceased. The legal
heirs can pursue the claim in the case of death of the injured
in a road traffic accident. There is no reason to prohibit the
legal representatives to pursue the claim petition filed by the
deceased during his lifetime for the loss of property, akin to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
HC-KAR
the estate of the injured, if injured dies subsequently. I see
absolutely no reason to differ from the declaration of law and
the insurer also raises no objection on the same.
15. Taking into consideration the death of the
petitioner, the petitioners are not entitled for the
compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The LRs
of the deceased petitioner have not produced any proof to
show that there was a nexus between the injuries and the
death of the deceased petitioner. Considering the nature of
injuries sustained by the deceased petitioner, also the
evidence of the Doctor and further the deceased petitioner has
spent Rs.8,99,500/- towards the medical expenses, the LRs of
the deceased petitioner are entitled to a global compensation
of Rs.15,00,000/-.
16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed-in-part;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13503
HC-KAR
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is hereby modified;
iii. The LRs of the deceased petitioner are entitled to a
global compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realisation;
iv. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
v. Registry is directed to transfer the amount in
deposit and Trial Court records to the Tribunal,
forthwith;
vi. Registry is directed to refund the excess amount in
deposit, if any, to the Insurance Company;
vii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
PA
CT: BSB
