THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs SMT. MAURIGEWWA W/O DUNDAPPA NAROTE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101068 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ND
2 FLOOR SIKSHAKA VISHWASTA
MANDALA SHIKSHAK BHAVAN
COLLEGE ROAD,
BELAGAVI 590005,
INSURER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.MH-10/DX155,
VALID FROM 30-05-2017 TO 29-05-2018
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MURIGEWWA
W/O. DUNDAPPA NAROTE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MADABHAVI,
TALUK ATHANI 591304,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. PADMAVVA W/O. SHIVALING GADADE
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MADABHAVI,
TALUK ATHANI 591304,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. SURESH JAMBAGI
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MURAGUNDI,
TALUK ATHANI 591304,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
4. SMT. MAHADEVI
W/O. SIDDAPPA GADADE,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MADABHAVI,
TALUK ATHANI 591304,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI. VITHAL S/O. APPANNA NAROTE
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MADABHAVI,
TALUK ATHANI-591304,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SHRI. MURIGEPPA S/O. APPANNA NAROTE
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TALUK ATHANI 591304,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SHRI. PARAGONDA
S/O. LAKSHMAN PATIL
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. LINGANAUR 416410,
TAL MIRAJ DISTRICT SANGALI
[OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.MH-10/DX-155]
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6;
NOTICE TO R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND HEAR THE
PARTIES AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.12.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. AT ATHANI IN MVC
NO.1328/2018 BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION AND ALSO
CONSIDERING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
06.12.2021 passed in MVC No.1328/2018 by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., & Additional
M.A.C.T., Athani, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), Respondent
No.2 being insurance company before the Tribunal, has
preferred this appeal.
2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1
to 4 are the daughters and Petitioner No.5 and 6 are the
sons of deceased Appanna Narote. On 14.07.2017, at
about 5.30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding
towards Arag Village on a motorcycle bearing Registration
No.KA-23/ED-0973, the driver of the tractor bearing
Registration No.MH-10/DX-155 dashed against the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
motorcycle from behind in a rash and negligent manner.
Due to the impact, the deceased fell down, and the tractor
ran over his head, resulting in his death on the spot.
4. The deceased was earning ₹5,00,000/- per
annum through agricultural activities and the petitioners
were dependent on his income. Hence, they filed the claim
petition seeking compensation of ₹30,00,000/- along with
interest.
5. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 did not file
objections, whereas respondent No.2 filed objections
denying the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and
the income of the deceased and contended that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased,
who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol and not
wearing a helmet. Further contended that the claim was
excessive, the petition was bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties, and the driver of the tractor did not
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
possess a valid driving licence. Hence, it sought dismissal
of the petition.
6. On the basis of said contentions of the parties,
the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“ ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
deceased, Appanna Shidaray Narote, died in
a road traffic accident that occurred on
14.07.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. on
Linganuru–Bellanki Road, within the limits of
Linganuru Village, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the tractor
bearing Registration No. MH-10/DX-155?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation as claimed? If so, to what
amount?
3. What order or award?”
7. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.5 examined
himself as P.W.1 and got marked 29 documents as Exs.P.1
to P.29. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
not lead any oral or documentary evidence, and their
evidence was taken as nil.
8. Upon appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence, and the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition by fastening liability on the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, awarded compensation under the following
heads:
Sl.
No.
Particulars Amount
Towards funeral expenses and
1. ₹20,000/-
transportation charges
Towards loss of
2. dependency/income from the ₹11,90,640/-
deceased
3. Consortium ₹2,40,000/-
4. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/-
5. 10% Escalation ₹27,500/-
Total ₹14,93,140/-
9. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company filed this appeal.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
10. Learned counsel for the Appellant,
Sri.G.N.Raichur, argued that the Tribunal has committed
an error in awarding compensation under the head of loss
of dependency, in spite of the evidence that, Petitioner
No.1 to 4 are the married daughters and Petitioner No.5
and 6 are the major sons who are having an occupation of
agriculture. Further argued that married daughters are not
the dependents of the deceased, the Tribunal is erred in
awarding interest at 6% per annum and if the said
compensation along with interest accrued thereon is not
deposited within 2 months, the interest will be enhanced
at the rate of 9% on the compensation amount.
11. Learned counsel Sri.Harish S. Maigur submitted
that the Petitioners are the daughters and sons of the
deceased who died in an accident. It is argued that they
are the dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal
rightly awarded compensation directing the insurance
company to deposit the compensation and interest amount
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
within 2 months, failing which, the award amount shall
carry interest at 9% per annum.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in
considering the petitioners are the
dependants of the deceased?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in
awarded compensation interest at the
rate of 6% per annum, failing which the
award amount shall carry interest at 9%
per annum, failing which the award
amount shall carry interest at 9% per
annum?
(iii) What order?
13. Points framed by this Court for consideration
are answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the negative.
Point No.(ii) : In the negative.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the
following:
14. Regarding Point No.(i): The relationship
between the Petitioners with the deceased is not in
dispute. The only contention raised by the Appellant is that
the married daughters are not entitled for compensation
and they shall not be treated as dependants. It is further
contended that the sons of the deceased are majors and
earning members; hence, they cannot be considered
dependants of the deceased.
15. In support of the contention, the learned
counsel for the Appellant drawn the attention of the Court
relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manjuri
Bera (Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
and another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 wherein at
paragraph No.7 reads as under:
“7. Section 166 of the Act corresponds to
Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Old Act') and the same reads as
follows:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
Application for compensation: (1) An application for
compensation arising out of an accident of the nature
specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be
made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by
all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person
injured or all or any of the legal representatives of
the deceased, as the case may be.
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the
deceased have not joined in any such application for
compensation, the application shall be made on behalf
of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of
the deceased and the legal representatives who have
not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
made, at the option of the claimant, either to the
Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area
in which the accident occurred or to the Claims
Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on
business or within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in
such form and contain such particulars as may
be prescribed:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
Provided that where no claim for compensation under
Section 140 is made in such application, the application
shall contain a separate statement to that effect
immediately before the signature of the applicant.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of
accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6)
of Section 158 as an application for
compensation under this Act.”
16. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Deep
Shikha and Another Vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and others reported in (2025) 6 SCR 365 ,
wherein paragraph Nos.13 and 14 read as under:
“ 13.One a daughter is married, logical
presumption is that she now has rights on her
matrimonial household and is also financially
supported by her husband or his family, unless
proven otherwise. It is more that likely that
her dependence on her natal family, including
her mother has now cease. Sections 166 and
168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on
the financial relationship between the
deceased and the Claimant. A married
daughter may be considered a legal
representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
will not be eligible for loss of dependency
compensation unless it is proven by the
daughter that she was financially dependent
on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the
record that Appellant No.1 has failed to prove
that she was being financially supported by
her mother post marriage and hence cannot
be said to be a dependent of her mother, the
deceased.
14. Therefore, it is our opinion the High Court
correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding
that Appellant No.1, as the legal
representative of the deceased, will only be
entitled to compensation envisaged in Section
140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability
under the same does not cease to exist in the
absence of dependency. ”
17. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Anand
Pal and others in Civil Appeal No.____ of 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7805 of 2022 dated
04.12.2023 , in this the petitioners were the siblings of
the deceased. The matter has been decided in different
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
contexts wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
wherein paragraph Nos.5, 7 and 8 reads as under:
“5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents as because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be
dependent on the father.
6. xxxxx
7. On the above, it is necessary for us to be
conscious that there are two family registers.
This would indicate that the victim resided
separately as was noted by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. The siblings of the victim
were older and were married with their own
respective families. In these circumstances,
they being dependent on the victim’s earnings
is unlikely particularly when the victim resided
separately.
8. Looking at the above, the Tribunal and the
High Court should not have considered the
three older married siblings, to be dependent
on the deceased victim. The compensation
awarded to the married siblings is therefore
found to be unmerited. The appeal is
accordingly allowed by setting aside the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal as upheld by the High Court under
the impugned judgment.”
18. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Seema
Rani and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and others reported in Civil Appeal No.2323
of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.444 of 2025) ,
wherein at paragraph No.9 reads as under:
“9. We have heard the learned counsel for the
Appellants. We are unable to agree with the
view taken by the Tribunal on the dependents
of the deceased. This Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender
& others., reported in 2020 ACJ 759 , I had
expounded that major married and earning
sons of the deceased, being legal
representatives, have a right to apply for
compensation, and the Tribunal must consider
the application, irrespective of whether the
representatives are fully dependent on the
deceased or not. The Court went on to
conclude that since the sons, in that case,
were earning merely Rs.1,50,000/- per
annum, they were largely dependent on the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
earnings of the deceased and were staying
with her.”
19. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender
and others reported in ( 2020) 11 SCC 356 wherein at
paragraph No.14 reads as under:
“14. It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to apply
for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily
follow that even the major married and earning sons
of the deceased being legal representatives have a
right to apply for compensation and it would be the
bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether the legal
representative concerned was fully dependent on the
deceased and not to limit the claim towards
conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the
present case would suggest that the claimants were
working as agricultural labourers on a contract basis
and were earning a meagre income of between
Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that
sense, they were largely dependent on the earnings of
their mother and, in fact, were staying with her, who
met with the accident at the young age of 48 years.”
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
20. In the present case, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4
are the married daughters or in household they are
homemakers have no fixed source of income. Petitioner
Nos.5 and 6 are an agriculturist. Normally the married
daughters one or another way depend on their parents,
though they are married. Petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the
married sons. They are also not having sufficient income.
21. In the case of Sameem Begum and others
Vs. K. Venkat Swamy and another reported in 2026
SCC Online SC 1577 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the legal representatives can claim motor accident
compensation even without financial dependency on the
deceased. Such being the circumstances, the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
married daughters and major sons are not entitled for
compensation cannot be accepted. Accordingly, point
No.(i) is answered in the negative .
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
22. Regarding Point No.(ii): Further insurance
company contends that if the amount is not deposited
within 2 months, the insurance company shall pay interest
at 9% per annum is under challenge. The law permits
either the petitioner or respondent in MVC case, if they are
aggrieved by the judgment they shall prefer an appeal
within 90 days. Such being the circumstances, this Court
is of the opinion that 90 days starts from the date of
receiving the certified copy of the impugned judgment and
award. But in this case, the Tribunal directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation
amount with interest within a period of 6 weeks from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.
Therefore, the Insurance Company is duty-bound to
comply the award and deposit the compensation amount
along with interest as directed by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹14,93,140/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition. However, the condition has been imposed by the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
Tribunal on the insurance company, directing to deposit
the entire compensation amount along with interest within
a period of 2 months from the date of award, failing which,
the award amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum.
23. Section 168(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
reads as under:
“(3) When an award is made under this section,
the person who is required to pay any amount in terms
of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of
announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit
the entire amount awarded in such manner as the
Claims Tribunal may direct.”
24. Herein, it cannot make out that when the
parties had obtained the certified copy of the judgment or
when the limitation starts without ascertaining such
things, the Tribunal imposed default interest at 9% per
annum. Aggrieved party has got every right to challenge
the judgment and award passed by any Court. Such being
the circumstances, condition imposed by the Tribunal that
after 2 months, the amount shall carry interest at 9% per
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
annum is infringement of the right of the aggrieved party,
and it amounts to arbitrary and not sustainable. So this
Court is of the opinion that, the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in
the negative .
25. Regarding Point No.(iii) : In view of the
finding point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is allowed in part .
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified as award shall
carry interest at 6% per annum.
iii) The remaining observations and findings
made by the Tribunal are kept intact .
iv) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
v) Registry to transmit the Trial Court
Records forthwith.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17244
MFA No. 101068 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020020682022
vi) In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are
accordingly disposed of.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53