Karnataka HC Cuts Accident Award By ₹3.33 Lakh, Finding 55-Year-Old Father Was Not Shown Dependent On Deceased

The claimants sought compensation for the death of K.T. Pradeepa in a road accident involving an autorickshaw insured by the appellant.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹32,35,357 with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurer to pay.

The insurer appealed, disputing its liability on the ground that the autorickshaw’s permit was limited to Tarikere taluk, and challenging the deduction made for the deceased’s personal expenses.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, an insurer seeking to avoid liability on the basis of a policy-condition breach must establish the asserted breach.

The Court applied the principle that evidence unsupported by pleadings cannot establish a case.

In assessing dependency compensation, the Court considered the number of dependants and recalculated the deceased’s contribution to the family by deducting one-third for personal expenses where only three claimants were found dependent.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as stated in the cause title.

The insurer’s permit argument failed because the alleged restriction was not pleaded in its written statement, and it did not examine an official from the transport authority to prove that the autorickshaw lacked permission to ply in Kadur.

The Court therefore rejected the argument as unsupported by pleadings and proof.

By contrast, the record did not show that the deceased’s father was dependent on him: dependency was not pleaded, and the deceased’s wife did not testify to it.

The Court accordingly treated only the wife and two minor children as dependants and recalculated loss of dependency using a one-third deduction, the Tribunal’s monthly income of ₹14,000, multiplier 17, and 40% addition.

The Court rejected the insurer’s permit defence but reduced the award by ₹3,33,200, fixing total compensation at ₹29,02,157 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation, including the amount already deposited, within six weeks; the Tribunal’s orders concerning the claimants’ shares and release remained unchanged.