[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mirambi vs Ayubkahan D Pathan on 2 April, 2026

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

                                                        -1-
                                                                   NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976
                                                               MFA No. 103377 of 2014


                               HC-KAR




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                                    DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                                   BEFORE

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103377 OF 2014 (MV-D)

                              BETWEEN:
                              1.    MIRAMBI
                                    W/O MOHMEDSAB BUDDEBHAI,
                                    AGE: 73 YEARS,
                                    OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                              2.    FATIMA
                                    D/O MOHMED BUDDEBHAI,
                                    AGE: 28 YEARS,
                                    OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

                              3.    MOHMEDGOUSE
                                    S/O MOHMED BUDDEBHAI,
                                    AGE: 26 YEARS,
                                    OCC: STUDENT,

CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
                              4.    ASMA
Digitally signed by
                                    D/O MOHMED BUDDEBHAI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
                                    AGE: 25 YEARS,
Date: 2026.04.06 11:17:30
+0100

                                    OCC: NILL,

                              5.    MUNEER
                                    W/O MOHMED BUDDEBHAI,
                                    AGE: 48 YEARS,
                                    OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                              6.    BANU
                                    D/O MOHMED BUDDEBHAI,
                                    AGE: 24 YEARS,
                                    OCC: NIL,
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976
                                   MFA No. 103377 of 2014


HC-KAR




     ALL ARE R/O: DESHNUR,
     TQ: BAILHONGAL,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                               ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE AND
    SRI RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1.   AYUBKAHAN D. PATHAN,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: PATHAN MANZIL 4TH CROSS,
     VEERABHADRA NAGAR,
     BELGAUM,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     RAMDEV GALLI,
     BELAGAVI.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DM MALLI, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 29.12.2009 PASSED BY THE MACT IV AND III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT BELAGAVI IN CASE NO. MVC
NO.2102/2006 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED
FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
                                   -3-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976
                                          MFA No. 103377 of 2014


HC-KAR




                          ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 29.12.2009 passed

by III Addl. District Judge and MACT-IV, Belgaum ('Tribunal' for

short) in MVC no.2102/2006, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri K.Anandkumar, learned counsel for appellants

submitted that claim petition was by claimants challenging

dismissal of claim. It was submitted, at 8:30 p.m. on

24.05.2004, when Mohmed was walking by side of Belgaum -

Bagalkot road, driver of Truck no.KA-22/A-774 drove it in rash

and negligent manner and dashed against claimant from

backside. As a result, Mohmed sustained fracture of right femur

and though admitted for treatment at District Hospital, Belgaum

and Karnataka Health Institute at Ghataprabha, he did not

recover fully and on account of financial hardship, he got himself

discharged and while under treatment at home, died on

01.08.2004. Alleging loss of dependency on account of his

untimely demise, his mother, wife and children filed claim

petition against owner and insurer of Lorry.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976

HC-KAR

3. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear and

was placed ex-parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition. One of

specific contentions urged was there was no nexus between

death occurring on 01.08.2004 and accidental injury sustained

on 24.05.2004. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in passing

impugned award. It was submitted, Ex.P5 - wound certificate

would indicate that claimant had sustained fracture of right

femur. Ex.P9 would indicate injured had died on 01.08.2004 at

residence. Ex.P11 issued by doctor examined as PW2 would

indicate that claimant was under treatment with PW2 till his

death. It was submitted, medical bills produced would indicate

that claimant was under treatment and consuming medicine right

upto date of death and therefore, dismissal of claim petition on

ground that claimants had failed to produce post-mortem

examination report to establish nexus between death and

accidental injuries would be without proper consideration of

material on record and call for interference.

4. For enhancement, it was submitted that claimant was

43 years of age, working as tailor and earning ₹5,000/- per

month as per Ex.P10 - salary certificate. It was submitted,

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976

HC-KAR

claimants are mother, wife and 4 children with claimant no.6

being minor. As per decision in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16

SCC 680, claimants would be entitled for addition of 25%

towards future prospects. Deduction towards personal expenses

to be at 1/4th and multiplier applicable would be '14'. From

above, claimants would also be entitled for compensation under

conventional heads with escalation. On said ground sought for

allowing appeal.

5. On other hand, Sri DM Malli, advocate appearing for

Sri Gangadhar S.Hosakeri, learned counsel for insurer opposed

appeal. It was submitted, Tribunal had on proper appreciation of

facts and circumstances rightly dismissed claim petition and

there was no scope for interference. It was submitted that death

was admittedly more than two months after accident in question

and therefore, in absence of specific material to establish nexus,

Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim petition on account of

failure of claimant to secure and produce post-mortem

examination report. On said ground sought for dismissal of

appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976

HC-KAR

6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,

award and record.

7. From above since only claimants are in appeal

challenging dismissal of claim petition, points that would arise for

consideration are:

1. Whether dismissal of claim petition is justified?

and

2. If not, compensation to which claimants would be entitled for?

8. Point no.1: At outset, there is no dispute about

occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle leading to

Mohmed sustaining grievous injury of fracture of right femur.

Claimant states that on account of financial difficulty and as

claimant was not able to afford treatment, got himself

discharged and continued treatment with PW2 as per Ex.P10.

PW2 stated that during treatment i.e. dressing, wound got

infected and lead to death by septicemia. PW2 had also entered

witness box and deposed in terms of Ex.P11, which indicates that

claimant was under treatment of PW2 from 10.06.2004 to

26.07.2004. Perusal of medical bills produced, especially Ex.P7,

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976

HC-KAR

which is dated 29.07.2004 issued by Dakshata Hospital Private

Limited along with bill and acknowledgment of payment dated

30.07.2004 would indicate that claimant was in treatment at

Dakshata Hospital upto 30.07.2004. Same would provide

sufficient nexus for accidental injuries to death occurring on

01.08.2004. Though normally in case of death due to accidental

injuries, claimants to produce post-mortem examination report,

its non-production cannot be fatal. It would be open for claimant

to rely upon other material to establish nexus.

9. As noted above, there is other material to establish

nexus between accidental injury sustained and death. Therefore,

dismissal of claim petition on ground of non-production of post-

mortem examination report would not be justified. Point no.1 is

answered in 'negative'.

10. Point no.2: On quantum though claimant stated that

he was working as tailor and earning ₹5,000/- as per Ex.P10,

perusal of Ex.P10 would not inspire confidence as there is no

registration number of employer nor any other particulars. In

absence of specific proof, notional income has to be considered.

Notional income for year 2004 is ₹3,500/-. Therefore, same has

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976

HC-KAR

to be considered. Claimants herein are mother, wife and 4 minor

children i.e. 6 in number. There is no specific material to

establish that children were staying away from their parents.

Therefore, all claimants have to be considered as dependents

and 1/4th deducted towards personal expenses. Likewise, as per

decision in Pranay Sethi, considering age of deceased at 43

years, 25% has to be added to monthly income towards future

prospects and multiplier applicable would be '14'. Thus,

compensation towards loss of dependency would be

₹5,51,208/-.

11. Apart from above, claimants would be entitled for

₹40,000/- each towards filial, spousal and parental consortium

i.e. total of ₹2,40,000/-. Claimants will also be entitled for

₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹15,000/- towards

loss of estate. Since more than 6 years have lapsed after

decision in Pranay Sethi, an escalation at 20% has to be added

to award under conventional heads i.e. ₹54,000/-. Thus, total

compensation would be ₹8,75,208/-. Point no.2 is answered

'partly in affirmative'. Consequently, following:

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4976

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

ii. Judgment and award dated 29.12.2009 passed in MVC no.2102/2006 dismissing claim petition is set aside. Claim petition is allowed in part.

iii. Claimants are held entitled for total compensation of ₹8,75,208/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit excluding period of 1727 days being delay in filing appeal.