HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs VENUGOPAL
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4022 OF 2016(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO. 25/1, BUILDING NO.2, II FLOOR,
SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDINGS,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
HEREIN REP BY ITS ASST. MANAGER (L).
…APPELLANT
[BY SRI LINGARAJ H S., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1. VENUGOPAL
NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY
HIS SOLE LR RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN
2. KISHORE V
NOW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
S/O VENUGOPAL
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.20,
TH
4 'E' CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR,
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. MAHESH G R
MAJOR,
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
S/O RANGAIAH,
RD
R/A NO.124/56, 3 B STREET,
ST RD
1 MAIN ROAD, 3 CROSS,
T.R.NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
BY SRI B.C.THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.PARAMESHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R23 (PH);
V/O DTD 13.12.2023 R2 IS RECOGNIZED AS LRS OF
DECEASED R1; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4143/14 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,39,365/-
WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 04.02.2016
passed by Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC
no.4143/2014, this appeal is filed.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
2. Sri HS Lingaraju, learned counsel submitted that
appeal was by insurer challenging finding of tribunal on liability
as well as on quantum.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimants
were that at 11:30 a.m. on 31.08.2014 when Smt.Shobha was
walking towards market, driver of auto no.KA-05/AB-2153
drove it in rash and negligent manner and it dashed against
her. In accident she sustained grievous injuries and despite
treatment at Panacea Hospital, Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru, she did not recover and succumbed to same on
07.09.2014 during treatment. Claiming compensation, her
husband and son filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against owner and insurer of Auto.
4. On contest, claim petition was opposed on all
grounds. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence.
5. Claimant deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits
P1 to P11. Respondent examined its official as RW1 and got
marked Exhibits R1 and R2.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto by its driver
leading to the death of Smt.Shobha and claimants were entitled
for compensation assessed at Rs.14,39,365/- with interest at
9% per annum. Aggrieved thereby appeal was filed.
7. It was submitted that at time of accident, driver of
autorickshaw did not hold any valid and effective driving
licence. Besides permit and fitness had expired. In view of
above, tribunal erred in holding insurer liable to pay
compensation. On quantum it was submitted that claimants
were husband and major son of deceased who could not be
stated to be dependent on income of deceased. Therefore,
claim petition was untenable and liable for dismissal. On said
ground sought for allowing of appeal.
8. On other hand, Sri BC Thippeswamy, learned
counsel appearing for S Parameshappa, learned counsel for
respondent no.2-claimant would oppose appeal. Insofar as
challenge on liability it was submitted that even in case of
occurrence of accident while driver did not have valid and
effective driving licence, claimant was a pedestrian and as
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
such, a third party to contract of insurance. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Rama Bai v. Amit Minerals reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2067 had held insurer liable to pay
compensation to third party claimants with liberty to recover
same from insured. Same would be position even in case
registration and permit were to be established to have expired.
On quantum it was submitted that deceased was wife of
claimant no.1 and mother of claimant no.2. Services of a
housewife to a household was well recognised in Shishu Pal v.
Surjeet reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1114 . Therefore,
challenge on ground of claimants not depending on income of
deceased would be untenable and sought for dismissal.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned award
and record.
10. This appeal is by insurer challenging finding of
tribunal on liability and on quantum. Points that would arise for
consideration are:
i. Whether tribunal was justified in
holding insurer liable to pay
compensation?
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
ii. Whether assessment of compensation
by tribunal was excessive, called for
reduction?
Reg. Point no.1:
11. To substantiate actionable negligence against
owner/insured, claimants relied on police investigation records.
Though same would implicate occurrence of accident due to
rash and negligent driving of auto by its driver, Ex.P2-charge
sheet would reveal that driver of autorickshaw was charge
sheeted not only for offences under Section 279 and 304A of
IPC, but also under Sections 134A and B, 187, 3(1), 181, 5,
180, 56 and 192 of MV Act, which would arise only in case
driver of a motor vehicle did not have any valid and effective
driving licence. Under similar circumstances, while considering
insurer's challenge on ground of driver not possessing driving
licence, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held insurer would still be
liable to pay compensation to claimant and thereafter recover it
from insured. Said ratio would apply on all squares to instant
case. Besides same, even challenge on ground of fitness and
permit having expired, position in law would still be same.
Therefore, point no.1 is answered partly in affirmative .
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
Reg. Point no.2:
12. In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal 's
case (supra) recognizing various services rendered by a
housewife to a household, it can no more be contended that
husband and major son of a housewife would not be dependent
on her. Therefore, challenge on quantum would be without any
merit and as such, answered in negative.
13. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part ;
(ii) Judgment and award dated
04.02.2016 passed by Member,
Principal MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC
no.4143/2014, is modified only to
extent of holding insurer liable to
pay compensation to claimants in
first instance and thereafter, be at
liberty to recover it from insured
without recourse to separate
proceedings;
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for
disbursal;
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61738
MFA No. 4022 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010307422016
(iv) Insurer to deposit balance
compensation, if any, before
Tribunal within six weeks;
(v) On deposit, entire compensation
with interest is ordered to be
released in favour of claimant.
(vi) Since claimant no.1 has died
during pendency of appeal, entire
compensation would be payable to
claimant no.2.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
YKL,AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18