Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101402 OF 2014 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101566 OF 2014 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 101402/2014
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
(INSURER OF TATA TRUCK NO.MH-04/BG-3922
VALID POLICY NO.15040031120100003999
VALID FROM 01.07.2012 UP TO 30.06.2013)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER MOTOR
THIRD PARTY HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET HUBLI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI GN RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.17 22:34:25 -
0700
1. SHRI RUDRAPPA
S/O DUNDAPPA HALATTI,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O. JAINAPUR, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SMT.SHOBHA D/O RUDRAPPA HALATTI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. JAINAPUR, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. KUMARI MAHADEVI
D/O RUDRAPPA HALATTI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. JAINAPUR,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SHRI ANIL DNYANOBA GAIKWAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. PARAGOAN, TQ: PURANDAR,
DIST: PUNE, STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
(OWNER OF TATA TRUCK
BEARING NO.MH-04/BG-3922)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.02.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.111/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT CHIKKODI,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,09,250/- WITH THE
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION & ETC.
IN MFA NO. 101566/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI RUDRAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA HALATTI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE,
2. SMT.SHOBHA D/O RUDRAPPA HALATTI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. KUMARI MAHADEVI D/O RUDRAPPA HALATTI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. JAINAPUR, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST:
BELGAUM.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SHRI ANIL DNYANOBA GAIKWAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PARAGAON, TQ: PURANDAR,
DIST: PUNE,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
HAVAING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GN RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND CLAIM & GRANT REASONABLE
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,21,000/- WITH COSTS AND
PROPER INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
REALIZATION OF AWARD AMOUNT AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS AND ACCORDINGLY MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2014 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, CHIKODI IN
MVC NO.111/2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging Judgment and award dated 19.02.2014
passed by Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Chikodi, at
Chikodi, (‘ Tribunal’ for short), in MVC no.111/2013, these
appeals are filed.
2. MFA no.101402/2014 is filed by insurer challenging
award on negligence, while MFA no.101566/2014 is filed by
claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3. Sri GN Raichur learned counsel for appellant-insurer
submitted, as per claimants at 7:50 on 28.09.2012,
Smt.Mangala and her son Duradundi Halatti, were riding on
motorcycle no.KA.23/EC-7186 on old PB road near Narvekar
Farm, when driver of Tata Truck no.MH-04/BG-3922 drove it in
rash and negligent manner and stopped it suddenly on road
without giving any signal. Due to same, rider of motorcycle
following lorry could not stop his motorcycle in time and it
dashed against lorry from behind. In said accident, rider as well
as pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and died. Alleging
loss of dependency on account of untimely death, husband and
daughters of deceased Mangala Halatti, filed claim petition
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (‘ MV Act ’ for
short), against owner/insurer of Lorry.
4. Despite service of notice owner did not appear.
Only insurer opposed claim petition alleging occurrence of
accident due to entire contributory negligence rider of
motorcycle.
5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
record evidence. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P13. Insurer did not lead oral evidence but
got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held claimants had
established occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle and
claimants being husband and daughters of deceased entitled for
compensation of ₹6,79,000/-, out of which, 75% liability was
saddled on insure with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved,
insurer was in appeal.
7. Learned counsel for insurer submitted, when
accident had occurred due to rider of motorcycle rear ending
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
lorry, Tribunal was not justified in holding insurer liable to pay
compensation. On said ground sought for allowing appeal.
8. It was submitted, insurer’s appeal was challenging
finding of Tribunal on negligence as well as quantum. It was
submitted, as per police investigation records relied upon by
claimants, accident occurred when motorcycle was following
insured Lorry and accident occurred, due to motorcycle rear
ending it. Though it is alleged that driver of Lorry stopped it
suddenly, accident occurred apparently due to rider of
motorcycle failing to maintain safe distance and being unable to
stop vehicle without collision.
9. It was further submitted, rider of motorcycle did not
have driving licence to ride motorcycle. Therefore finding of
Tribunal holding insurer liable to pay compensation and
apportionment of 75% liability on Lorry driver was contrary to
material on record and called for interference.
10. On quantum it was submitted, claimants were
husband and major children of deceased. Therefore instead of
1/3rd, Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal
expenses.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
11. On other hand, Sri Rajendra R Patil, learned counsel
for claimants while opposing insurer's appeal submitted that
claimants had also filed appeal for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted as on date of accident i.e.
28.09.2012, deceased Smt.Mangala was 50 years of age was
housewife and doing vegetable vending etc., and earning
₹10,000/- per month. However without any justification,
Tribunal considered her monthly income at ₹6,000/- and
without adding future prospects and awarded inadequate
compensation under conventional heads, passed impugned
judgment. Therefore, claimants were entitled for enhancement.
In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon
decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mrs. Kannika
and Ors. v. Managing Director, KSRTC reported in ILR 2011
KAR 3969.
12. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and award as well as copies of pleadings and exhibits
made available for perusal by learned counsel for claimants.
13. From above, points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether finding of Tribunal on apportionment of
negligence calls for modification? and
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
2. Whether assessment of compensation by Tribunal
calls for modification as prayed?
14. Point no.1 : From above, it is seen that there is no
dispute about occurrence of accident due to involvement of
insured vehicle leading to death of Smt.Mangala and claimants
being entitled for compensation. In order to establish
actionable negligence against owner and insurer of Lorry,
claimants relied upon police investigation records. Though
complaint and FIR are against Lorry, Ex.P7 – charge sheet is
filed against driver of Lorry as well as rider of motorcycle. It is
seen that both vehicles were proceeding in same direction on
old PB road, which is National Highway and at 7:50 p.m., with
Lorry proceeding ahead of motorcycle. A careful perusal of
complaint reveals that initially complainant stated that driver of
Lorry suddenly slow down Lorry and deceased rider of
motorcycle was unable to control motorcycle and it collided
against hind portion of Lorry. But in penultimate paragraph,
complainant alleges that driver of Lorry stopped Lorry suddenly
without any signal.
15. Normally on a National Highway, vehicles are
expected to move in certain speed. In case any vehicle is
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
required to be stopped or slow down, same can only be
achieved by avoiding risk to other road users i.e. by giving
sufficient signal. At same time, Rules of Road Safety
Regulations, 1989 require maintaining of safe driving distance
between two vehicles. Apparently with a view to enable vehicle
following another to avoid collision in case vehicle moving
ahead is required to stop or applies brakes. Unfortunately, best
witnesses that could have been examined namely rider and
pillion rider of motorcycle have both died. In instant case, there
is absolutely no material to indicate that driver of Lorry had
taken any such precaution. Even complainant who sprung
Police investigation into motion has not mentioned distance
between Lorry and motorcycle immediately prior to accident.
16. In view of above and taking note of fact that police
after independent investigation have filed charge sheet against
both driver of Lorry as well as rider of motorcycle, it is found
appropriate to apportion negligence between them equally @
50% each. Point no.1 is answered accordingly.
17. Point no.2 : On quantum, though claimants stated
that deceased Mangala was working as housewife and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
vegetable vending and earning ₹10,000/- per month, same is
not substantiated with any specific material. In absence,
Tribunal would be justified in assessing it notionally. But,
notionally income for year 2000 being ₹6,500/-, same has to
be considered. Claimants are husband and two unmarried
daughters and deceased was 50 years of age and self-
employed. Therefore, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% has to be added to
monthly income towards future prospects, deduction towards
personal expenses has to be at 1/3rd and multiplier applicable
would be ‘13’. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency
would be:
rd
₹6,500 (+ 25%) (– 1/3 ) x 12 x 13 = ₹8,45,000/- .
18. Apart from above, claimant no.1 would be entitled
for ₹40,000/- towards spousal consortium and claimants no.2
and 3 entitled for ₹40,000/- each towards filial consortium in
addition to ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
₹15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since 6 years have lapsed
after decision in Pranay Sethi , 20% has to be added to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
compensation under conventional heads i.e. ₹30,000/-. Thus,
total compensation would be ₹10,25,000/-. Point no.2 is
answered ‘partly in affirmative’ as above.
19. Insofar as Division Bench decision in Mrs. Kannika's
case, it is seen that apportionment of 80% of negligence on
driver of Bus was taking note of fact that distance between Bus
and motorcycle was only 4 feet leaving no reaction time for
motorcyclist, unlike in present case and therefore ratio would
not apply. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Both MFAs no.101402 and 101566 of 2014 are
allowed in part .
ii. Judgment and award dated 19.02.2014 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Chikodi
in MVC no.111/2013 stands modified.
iii. Insurer is held liable to extent of 50% of total
compensation.
iv. Claimants are held entitled for total
reassessed compensation of ₹10,25,000/- as
against ₹6,79,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5370
MFA No. 101402 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101566 of 2014
HC-KAR
v. Claimants are held entitled for 50% of same
i.e. ₹5,12,500/- with interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till deposit.
vi. Amount in deposit in insurer’s appeal is
ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for
disbursal.
vii. Balance amount, if any, is directed to be
deposited before Tribunal within six weeks.
viii. On deposit, direction of Tribunal with regard to
apportionment, release and disbursement is
maintained. However, entire compensation is
ordered to be released.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP: LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 0