THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, vs MARENNA S/O. LATE BASAPPA,

- 1 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

th
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100864 OF 2017

(MV-D)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100442 OF 2017

(MV-D)



IN MFA NO. 100864/2017
BETWEEN:


THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S. MAGMA HDI GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
M/S. MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
MAGMA HOUSE, 24 PARK STREET,
KOLKATA-700016.
…APPELLANT








Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date:
2026.11.07
12:47:27
+0530
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE)
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR

AND:

1. MARENNA S/O. LATE BASAPPA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, COOLIE,

2. THIPPAMMA D/O. LATE BASAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, COOLIE,

3. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE BASAPPA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, COOLIE,

- 2 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017



ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 255,
OLD ASHRAYA COLONY,
ASUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DIST-583 103.

4.
HONNURA S/O. MAHADEVA,
AGE. 28 YEARS, S C COLONY,
DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER
BEARING REG. NO. KA-34-A-7311 AND
KA-34-TA-0121, R/O. ASUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DIST-583 103.

5. YAMUNAPPA C/O. E.SANNA ERANNA,
AGE. 37 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING REG. NO. KA-34-A-7311
R/O. W.NO. 17, ANANTAPUR ROAD,
BEHIND MAHINDRA SHOW ROOM,
JANATA NAGAR, BALLARI-583119.

6. VISHNU ELIGAR S/O. ERAPPA ELIGAR,
AGE. 42 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE TRAILER
BEARING NO. KA-34-TA-0121,
R/O. ASUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DIST-583 103.

7. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
SLV TOWERS, MAIN ROAD,
PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.L. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV. FOR R7;
NOTICE TO R4 & R5 IS SERVED;
R6 HELD SUFFICIENT)

- 3 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO, CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE
PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16.12.2016 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI IN MVC NO.146/2015 WITH COST IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 100442/2017
BETWEEN:

1. MARENNA S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

2. THIPPAMMA D/O LATE BASAPPA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

3. LAKSHMI D/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

ALL ARE R/O NO. 255, OLD ASHRAYA COLONY,
ASUNDI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. Y L REDDY AND Y MALATHI REDDY, ADVS.)
AND:
1. HONNURA S/O MAHADEVA
AGED: ABOUT 27 YEARS,
SC COLONY,
DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR-
TRAILER BEARING REG.
NO. KA-34/A-7133 AND KA-34/TA-0121,
R/O. ASUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

2.
YEMUNAPPA C/O E. SANNA ERANNA
AGED: ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER

- 4 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


BEARING REG NO. KA-34/A-7133
AND KA-34/TA-0121
R/O W NO. 17, ANANTAPUR ROAD,
BEHIND MAHINDRA SHOW ROOM,
JANATA NAGAR, BALLARI.

3.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED,
MAGMA HOUSE, 24 PARK STREET,
KOLKATA.

4.
VISHNU ELIGAR S/O ERAPPA ELIGAR
AGE: ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE TRAILER
BEARING NO. KA-34/TA-0121,
R/O ASUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SLV TOWERS, MAIN ROAD,
PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J BADDI FOR R3, ADVOCATE;
SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV. FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R1, R2 AND R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.12.2016 PASSED BY THE MACT-II, AT BALLARI IN
MVC NO. 146/2015 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO
THE APPELLANT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS
AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

- 5 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 02.11.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

CAV JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC

No.146/2015 dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal - II, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as
‘Tribunal’, for short), Insurance Company of the tractor bearing
registration No.KA-34/A-7311 has preferred MFA
No.100864/2017 seeking to set aside the same and the
claimants have filed MFA No.100442/2017 seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact of
accident and death of Huligemma, mother of the claimants. It
is also pertinent to note that the claim petition before the
Tribunal was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and the parties are referred herein as per their ranks
before the Tribunal.
3. After considering oral and documentary evidence,
Tribunal held that accident in question has taken place on
19.02.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer
by respondent No.1-driver and awarded compensation of

- 6 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


₹5,32,000/-. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company of
tractor was directed to pay ₹4,50,000/-, whereas respondent
No.5 -Insurance Company of trailer bearing No. KA-34/TA-0121
was directed to pay ₹82,000 to the claimants. After considering
the materials on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation as
follows:
Head Amount in
Rs.
Loss of dependency 3,92,000/-
Loss of expectancy 30,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection 30,000/-
Loss of Future prospects 50,000/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses 30,000/-
Total 5,32,000/-
4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company of the
tractor, contended that accident occurred due to the negligent
driving of the driver of tractor-trailer, but root cause for the
accident is the trailer, which is insured with respondent No.5.
The learned counsel’s contention is that Tribunal has wrongly
saddled major portion of the liability on respondent No.3. It
was also contended that claimants were not dependent on the
deceased Huligemma. They are major and married children of
late Huligemma. Hence, claimants are not entitled for
compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’. In this
regard, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

- 7 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


1
i. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. N.P.Joy & Ors.
ii. Deep Shikha and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company
2
Ltd. And Ors.
3
iii. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. G.B. Roopini
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5–Insurance
Company of the trailer contends that main cause of accident is
rash and negligent driving of tractor by its driver. So Tribunal
has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company of
the tractor.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that
the judgment referred by the insurance company do not apply
to the present case and it is argued that notional income of the
deceased has to be considered as ₹7,500/- per month, as per
the notional income chart issued by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. Since the age of the deceased was 95
years, multiplier ‘7’ has to be applied. Accordingly, claimants
are entitled for compensation under the heads of ‘loss of
consortium’, ‘medical expenses and attendant charges’.
Further, counsel for the claimants has relied on the following
judgment:
4
i. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender and others

1
Civil Appeal No.7050/2026 (arising out of SLP (C) 26642/2025)
2
(2025) 6 SCR 365; 2025 (2) TAC 711
3
MFA No.4621/2015 c/w MFA No.6860/2015 (MV)

- 8 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


7. Heard the arguments advanced and perused the
materials on record.
8. At the outset, it is important to note here that in
the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the claimants in
the case of Birender noted supra , the deceased was receiving
salary and family pension. It is also important to note that the
accident occurred on 20.10.2014 and as per her service
records, she was due for retirement on 31.03.2027. It is stated
that legal representatives of the deceased were working as
agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning
meager income between ₹1,00,000/- to ₹1,50,000/- per
annum. Hence, in the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court held
that legal representatives of the deceased were largely
dependent on the earnings of the deceased who died at the
young age of 48 years.
9. In the present case, evidence led by PW1-claimant
No.1 brings out the facts that deceased was aged 65 years, her
two daughters were married and residing at their respective
matrimonial homes, whereas claimant No.1 is earning from
coolie work and was looking after the deceased from his
earnings. However, PW1 has also deposed that deceased was

4
2020 ACJ 759

- 9 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


working, but nothing has been placed before the Court to
support the same. Hence, in my opinion, the aforementioned
judgment in the case of Birender is distinguishable on facts
and inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
10. The claimants have failed to place any evidence on
record to substantiate their dependency upon the deceased.
Hence, claimants are not dependents of the deceased for
computing and awarding compensation under the head of ‘loss
of dependency’ and therefore it is pertinent to extract
paragraph 15 of the judgment in Birender noted supra,
wherein it is held as under:
“15. 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 concerned legal representative
was fully dependant 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 contract basis and were earning meagre
income between Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.1,50,000 per
annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent
on the earning of their mother and in fact, were
staying with her, who met with an accident at the
young age of 48 years.”

- 10 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


11. For the above discussed reasons, claimants are
entitled for compensation under the heads of ‘loss of
consortium’, ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘attendant
charges’. Hence, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
5
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi , this Court fixes the compensation
under conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses as Rs.19,925/-, Rs.1,59,720/- and
Rs.19,925/- respectively.
12. It is also important to note here that deceased was
admitted to VIMS hospital, Ballary and was in-patient from
19.02.2014 till 12.03.2014. Even the medical document at
Exhibit P11 reflects the said facts. However, Insurance
Company of the tractor–respondent No.3 has taken up a
contention that deceased was provided free medication at VIMS
Hospital, which has been denied by the claimant No.1 - PW1.
But the claimants have not produced bills for having spent
towards medication of the deceased. However, the fact that
during the aforesaid 22 days, deceased required atleast one
attendant cannot be ruled out. Hence, under the head of
‘attendant charges’, compensation has to be awarded.

5
2017 (16) SCC 680

- 11 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


Therefore, claimants are entitled for compensation under the
following heads:
Head Amount in
Rs.
Loss of Estate 19,965/-
Loss of Consortium (Rs.53,240/- x 3) 1,59,720/-
Funeral Expenses 19,965/-
Towards attendant charges 20,000/-
Total 2,19,650/-

13. One more contention raised by respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company of the tractor is that the accident occurred
due to the negligent moving of trailer and hence, major portion
of the liability has been wrongly fastened on the insurance
company of the tractor. In this regard, learned counsel relied
upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case
of United India Insurance Vs. Smt. G. B. Roopini and
others, MFA No.4621/2015 clubbed with MFA No.6862/2015
(Bengaluru Bench).
14. In the above judgment, no part of the tractor had
come in contact with the motorcycle of the deceased and it is
the trailer attached to the tractor which had caused the
accident. Under the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Division
Bench took note of the insurance policy wherein it was
stipulated that Premium per month (PPM) was collected

- 12 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


separately from the tractor and trailers. Hence, the Division
bench found no fault in saddling liability on the insurer of the
trailer.
15. Similarly, in the present case, admittedly tractor

and trailer were separately insured. Tractor was insured with
respondent No.3 and trailer was insured with respondent No.5.
It is discernible from the evidence of PW1 that tractor and
trailer both hit the deceased. It is pertinent to note here that
originally FIR has been registered against driver of the tractor.
Subsequently, further statement of the complainant was
recorded and charge sheet has been filed. In the further
statement, it was recorded that as the driver of the tractor
drove the tractor and trailer in high speed and negligent
manner, the trailer ran over the right thigh of the deceased.
Based on which, investigation has been conducted and charge
sheet has been filed alleging that the driver drove the tractor
and trailer in high speed and a negligent manner and trailer ran
over the same on the right thigh of the deceased.
16. It is pertinent to note that without attaching trailer
to a tractor, the former cannot move forward. The trailer and
tractor move together as a single unit. In this case, trailer was
attached to the tractor and both have separate insurance

- 13 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


policies. Considering the evidence of PW1 and entire materials
on record, I opine that Tribunal has erred in fastening major
portion of the liability on the insurance company i.e.,
respondent No.3 of the tractor. Hence, it is appropriate to
apportion the liability of 50% each on the insurers of both the
tractor and trailer i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
17. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7%
per annum. Adverting to the judgments in Puttama and
6
Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another and United
7
India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Malyadri M ,
interest is fixed at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
18. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.100864/2017 is partly allowed.
ii. MFA No.100442/2017 is dismissed.
iii. Consequently, judgment and award passed in MVC
No.146/2015 is modified to the extent that claimants
are entitled to compensation of ₹2,19,650/- with

6
(2013) 15 SCC 45
7
MFA 3895/2018

- 14 -
MFA No. 100864 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 100442 of 2017


interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization.
iv. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable
to pay the entire compensation amount to the
claimants and respondent No.3 and respondent No.5
are liable to pay 50% each of the compensation to
the claimants.
v. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 are directed to deposit 50%
each of the compensation awarded with interest
within 2 months from the date of award.
vi. The Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit, if

any, made by the Insurance Company along with
Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
vii. Registry to draw modified award.

Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE



KGK
CT:CNB