[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ambalamma And Ors vs Mallikarjun And Ors on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
MFA No. 202193 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 202100 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202193 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202100 OF 2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.202193/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. AMBALAMMA W/O BHIMANNA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
2. NAGARAJ S/O BHIMANNA,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. NAGAMMA D/O BHIMANNA,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed ALL R/O. NAGANATAGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
by LUCYGRACE DIST. YADGIR, NOW AT R/O. CIB COLONY,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI.
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLIKARJUN S/O TIMMAYYA MAKASI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O. NAGANATAGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR-585 323.
2. VIRABHADRAYYA S/O NIJALINGAYYA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O. NAGANATAGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
MFA No. 202193 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 202100 of 2019
HC-KAR
DIST. YADGIR-585 323.
3. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, VIRUPAKSHAKRUP,
OPP. KIMS MAIN GATE, P.B. ROAD,
KIMS ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAYANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDMGENT AND
AWARD DATED 02.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.914/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
KALABURAGI, AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.14,99,000/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
AND ORDER FOR COST OF THIS APPEAL AND PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS DEEMS FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
IN MFA NO.202100/2019:
BETWEEN:
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR,
VIRUPAKSHKRUP, OPP. KIMS MAIN GATE,
P.B. ROAD, KIMS ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR,
HUBLI-580021.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBLI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AMBALAMMA W/O BHIMANNA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
MFA No. 202193 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 202100 of 2019
HC-KAR
2. NAGARAJ S/O BHIMANNA,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. NAGAMMA D/O BHIMANNA,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL R/O. NAGANATAGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR, NOW R/O. C.I.B. COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
4. MALLIKARJUN S/O TIMMAYYA MAKASI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O. NAGANATAGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR-585 323.
5. VIRABHADRAYYA S/O NIJALINGAYYA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O. NAGANATAGI, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR-585 323.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI JAYANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2019 IN MVC NO.914/2017
PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals are arising out of the judgment and
award dated 02.08.2019 in MVC No.914/2017, on the file
of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT at
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), awarding
compensation to the claimants.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties in the
appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimants that the husband
of claimant No.1 - Bhimanna, has succumbed to the
injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 26.06.2016,
wherein, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in
tum-tum vehicle bearing registration No.KA-33/6704.
Hence, the claimants have filed claim petition in MVC
No.914/2017 before the Tribunal.
4. The claim petition was contested by the
respondent Nos.1 and 3 before the Tribunal i.e. the owner
and the Insurance Company. In order to establish their
case, the claimants have examined claimant No.1 as PW.1
and produced nine documents and the same were marked
as Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents have examined two
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and marked two documents
as Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal after considering the
material on record, by its judgment and award dated
02.08.2019, awarded compensation of Rs.7,98,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
claim petition till realization. The Tribunal has directed the
Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle
in question by satisfying the claim made by the claimants
therein. Feeling aggrieved by inadequacy of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred
MFA No.202193/2019 seeking enhancement of
compensation. The Insurance Company has filed MFA
No.202100/2019, challenging fastening of liability on the
Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
5. I have heard Sri Nagaraj Patil, the learned
counsel appearing for the claimants and Smt.Preeti Patil
Melkundi, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
6. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company contended that, the
vehicle in question was not having valid permit as on the
date of the accident and the permit was taken subsequent
to the date of the accident i.e., on 26.06.2016 and
therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company that, as there is no valid
permit to ply the vehicle as on the date of the accident,
the Tribunal has committed an error in directing the
Insurance Company to satisfy the claim on behalf of the
owner in question and therefore, sought for interference of
this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri Nagaraj Patil, the learned
counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that, even if
the vehicle in question do not have valid permit, however,
while placing the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of K. Nagendra vs. The New
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others reported in 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 1044 and contended that, the claimants
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
are entitled for compensation from the Insurance
Company and thereafter, it is open for the Insurance
Company to recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle in question. It is also argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the claimants that, the award of
compensation is inadequate and therefore, sought for
interference of this Court.
8. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful
consideration of the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal, the same would indicate that the
husband of claimant No. 1 - Bhimanna succumbed to
injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 26.06.2016,
wherein, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in
tum-tum vehicle bearing registration No.KA-33/6704.
Though the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company was justified in contending
that the vehicle in question did not possess valid permit as
on the date of the accident, however, the permit was
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
taken subsequent to the date of the accident. In that view
of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the
view that, when an Insurance Company issued policy and
by accepting payments of premium in pursuance thereto
and therefore, it is open for the Insurance Company to
satisfy the claim made by the claimants and thereafter,
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in
question.
9. Insofar as awarding of compensation is
concerned, having taken note of the finding recorded by
the Tribunal, it is not in dispute that the deceased was
aged about 49 years and in that view of the matter, as per
the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
appropriate multiplier applicable would be 13. Following
the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the
claimants are entitled for 25% future prospects. In that
view of the matter, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the total
compensation towards loss of dependency would be
Rs.11,37,500/- (Rs.8,750+25%=Rs.10,937x13x12x2/3rd).
The Claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards
the loss of love and affection. Hence, Rs.1,20,000/- is
awarded towards loss of love and affection. No
enhancement has been made insofar as funeral expenses
and loss of estate are concerned. Accordingly, the
quantum of compensation requires to be reassessed as
follows:
Heads Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.11,37,500/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,20,000/-
Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.12,87,500/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.7,98,000/-
Enhancement Rs.4,89,500/-
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,89,500/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
I. The appeals are allowed in part.
II. The appellants/claimants are entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.4,89,500/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
III. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount
within six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment and recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle in question.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:392
HC-KAR
IV. The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to
the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
CT:PK
