[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Narayan S/O Late Rajanna on 9 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3696
MFA No. 100532 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100532 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PEENISULA CORPORATE PARK,
NICHOLAS PIRIMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR,
GANPATHRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NARAYAN S/O LATE RAJANNA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, COOLIE,
2. SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGE: 37 YEARS, COOLIE,
BOTH ARE R/O DEVI NAGAR CAMP,
SIRUGUPPA TALUKA OF BALLARI DISTRICT.
CHANDRASHEKAR
3. SURESH MV S/O VEERABHADRACHARI MC
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI AGE: 26 YEARS, DRIVER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
Digitally signed by
PLUS MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/Y-6307,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
R/O SHANAVASAPURA VILLAGE IN SIRUGUPPA
TALUK OF BALLARI DISTRICT.
Bench
Date: 2026.03.10
09:29:54 +0000
4. YESHAPPA S/O URUKUNDAPPA,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OWNER OF THE HERO HONDA
SPLENDOR PLUS MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG. NO.KA-
34/Y-6307,
R/O. MAILAPURA VILLAGE IN SIRUGUPPA TALUKA OF
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 TO R4-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3696
MFA No. 100532 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.10.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, AT BELLARY, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,76,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.10.2014 passed
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - XII, Ballari (for short,
'Tribunal') in MVC no.101/2013, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri SK Kayakamath, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, claim petition was filed by brother and sister-in-law
(deceased brother's wife) under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 stating that on 17.05.2012 at about 10:00 a.m., when
Jayamma was collecting firewood near land of one Venkatesh, on
Siruguppa - Ballari road, rider of Hero-Honda Splendor Plus
motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-34/Y-6307 rode it in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against Jayamma causing
accident. In said accident, she sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed during treatment at Government Hospital Siruguppa.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3696
HC-KAR
Claiming that deceased was residing with claimants and
supporting them with her income and alleging loss of
dependency, claim petition was filed.
3. It was submitted, though claim petition was opposed,
Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1
along with another deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got marked
Exhibits P1 to P9. Respondents did not lead any evidence.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by rider,
motorcycle was insured with respondent no.3 - insurer and
claimants were entitled for compensation of ₹3,76,000/- with
interest at 7% per annum from respondents no.1 to 3. Aggrieved
by same, present appeal was filed.
5. It was submitted that claimants were not natural
heirs or successors of deceased, but brother and deceased
brother's wife and without establishing dependency on income of
deceased, determination of compensation was not justified. It
was submitted, Tribunal ought to have followed ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of A.Manavalagan v.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3696
HC-KAR
A.Krishnamurthy and others reported in ILR 2004 Kar
3268. On said grounds sought for allowing appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
7. Respondents are served and represented.
8. Though on perusal of impugned judgment and award,
there would be no dispute that claimants were not natural legal
heirs, there is no dispute about claimants being brother and
sister-in-law of deceased. But it is seen, at time of assessment of
compensation, Tribunal considered age of deceased as 38 years
and her income at ₹3,000/- per month as against claim of
₹10,000/- per month. Since accident occurred on 17.05.2012,
even if notional income has to be considered, which is at
₹6,500/-, compensation awardable after addition of future
prospects applying ratio laid down in A.Manavalagan case,
compensation would be ₹3,55,700/- as against ₹3,76,000/-
awarded. Difference would not be substantial. Therefore, I do not
find any good or sufficient grounds to interfere with award.
Accordingly, following:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3696
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit, if any is ordered to be
transferred to Tribunal for payment.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21
