Karnataka High Court
Smt.Kalpana W/O Shivaji Olekar vs Paragouda S/O Shivalingappa Patil on 10 October, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB
MFA No.101491 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101491 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KALPANA,
W/O SHIVAJI OLEKAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BACHI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
2. KUMAR SHRIKANT,
S/O SHIVAJI OLEKAR,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR AGE: 19 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
OCC: STUDENT,
DHARWAD BENCH
R/O: BACHI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SMT. PARUBAI,
W/O NIVRUTTI OLEKAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: JAGADALE PLOT,
SANJAY NAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB
MFA No.101491 of 2018
HC-KAR
SANGLI, TQ: MIRAJ,
DIST: SANGALI-416510.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARAGOUDA,
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.302,
ASUDGAON TEMBHODE VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: PANVEL,
MAHARASHTRA,
AND ALSO A/P: KHILEGAON,
TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE,
CO. LTD.,
MAHADEV PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR,
KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, NEHRU NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.312/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING
THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.163-A OF M.V. ACT &
ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB
MFA No.101491 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) Appellants aggrieved by rejection of their claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act') are in appeal questioning the judgment and award dated 03.02.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.312/2016 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Sri. Umesh C. Ainapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, and Sri. Suresh S.Gundi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-insurance company.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Shivaji Olekar, the husband of appellant No.1/claimant No.1, involving a container Truck bearing registration No.MH-06/AQ- -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR 6135. They stated that the deceased was aged 42 years and was working as a coolie earning Rs.100/- per day. The claimants stated that the accident took place on 04.09.2015 and the deceased died on 17.09.20215, and that they incurred a sum of Rs.82,000/- towards medical expenses towards the deceased. In response to issuance of notice, respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, remained absent and he was placed ex parte, while the insurer appeared through its counsel. The insurer filed its objection statement denying the claim petition averments and contended that the claim petition was not at all maintainable since the accident did not occur out of use of the vehicle in question. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and she produced 17 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.17. On behalf of respondent No.2-insurer, its official was examined as R.W.1 and two documents were marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The Tribunal considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that the death was due to the accident arising out of the use of vehicle in question.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel Sri. Umesh C.Ainapur would contend that the accident in which the husband of claimant No.1 died occurred when the deceased was unloading glasses from the container truck bearing No.MH-06/AQ-6135. The accident had taken place while using the motor vehicle. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was not during the course of use of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another V. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More1 and a decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saraswathamma2.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Suresh S.Gundi for the respondent No.2-insurance company would submit that the accidental death of the husband of claimant No.1 did not occur while using the motor vehicle in question. He submits that the deceased was unloading glasses and while unloading the glasses, the accident occurred which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal is right in 1 AIR 1991 SC 1769 2 ILR 2008 KAR 1553 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR dismissing the claim petition holding that the death was not due to use of the motor vehicle. However, learned counsel would submit that, if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that the death of husband of claimant No.1 was due to use of the motor vehicle, compensation may be awarded in terms of the Second Schedule of the MV Act. Thus, he prays for passing appropriate orders.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the records of the Tribunal, the following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the death of the husband of claimant No.1 was not while using the motor vehicle in question?
(ii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for compensation as prayed?
7. Our answer to the above points is in the negative and affirmative respectively for the following reasons:
(a) The claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the MV Act in respect of an accident that had taken place on 23.02.2016, prior to the amendment to the MV Act under -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR Act 32 of 2019 dated 09.08.2019. Under Section 163A of the MV Act, there is no necessity for the claimant to prove the negligence and he can claim compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule. It is clear that the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disability in respect of which claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(b) The appellants are the wife, son and mother of the deceased Shivaji Olekar. Claimant No.1/appellant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1. In her evidence, at paragraph No.3, P.W.1 has deposed as follows:
"3. It is submitted that, on the ill-fated day i.e. on 04-09-2015, at about 5:30 p.m. when my husband "Shri: Shivaji S/o Nivrutti Olekar"
along with other labours were unloading the Glasses from Container Truck No.MH-06/AQ-6135, at that time, when my husband was removing and taking the glasses from the bottom of the glasses from the Wooden crate (Boxes and Trays) by his hands, at that time, the glasses were cracked and broken and the said broken glasses pieces fell on -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR the my husband's head, neck back bone and shoulder and thereby he has sustained the grievous injuries to the neck, head, shoulder and back bone and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident my husband was taken to Sanjeevini Hospital, Ichalkaranaji. Thereafter he was shifted to Dr. Sanjeev Kulkarni Hospital, Miraj for few days and again as per advice of the doctors he was shifted to K.E.M. Govt. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, their he was succumbed due to incidental injuries on 17.09.2015 at 6.00 a.m. We have spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards Medical Bills, Hospital Bills and Rs.70,000/- towards the transportation of the dead body and Rs.50,000/- for funeral and other ceremonial day's expenses."
(c) The above would indicate that when the husband of claimant No.1 was unloading glasses from the container truck, the accident had taken place and it resulted in the death of her husband. The same is corroborated by the document at Ex.P.5(a), the statement of one Namdev Baiva Shinde who is an eye witnesses to the incident. He has categorically stated that while unloading the glass boxes from the container truck, in the evening, the boxes placed on the right side of the container fell on the deceased -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR resulting in grievous injuries due to which he died on 17.09.2015. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil's case (supra) has held that the expression "use of a motor vehicle" covers the accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary.
(d) Section 163A of the MV Act uses the words "accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle" which would mean that the accident should be connected with the use of motor vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above stated decision, at paragraph 13, has held as follows:
"13. The expression "arising out of the use of motor vehicles" was also used by Parliament in sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act wherein provision was made for constitution of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for speedy and expeditious adjudication of claims of compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. Furthermore, by sub- section (1) of Section 94 of the Act an obligation was imposed that no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter VIII of the Act. Section 95 prescribed the requirements of such insurance policies as well as limits of liability. In clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 95, it was laid down that the policy of insurance required must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against (i) any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place and (ii) the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. While construing the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" in sub-section (1) of Section 92-A of the Act, regard will have to be had to the fact that expressions to the same effect were also contained in Sections 95 and 110 of the Act."
(e) In the case on hand also, though the vehicle was stationary, the accident took place while unloading the glasses from the container truck which would mean that, while using the vehicle, the accident had taken place. Thus, the Tribunal
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR was not justified in dismissing the claim petition holding that the accident was not arising out of use of the motor vehicle. Hence, we set aside the said finding and hold that the accident in question had occurred while using the motor vehicle in question i.e., the container truck.
(f) The deceased was aged 42 years and, in terms of the Second Schedule of the MV Act, the maximum income to be considered is Rs.40,000/- per annum. The claimants, in their claim petition, have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day which would mean that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, and Rs.36,000/- per annum. If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs.36,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.24,000/-. In terms of the Second Schedule of the MV Act, multiplier 15 is to be considered. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.3,60,000/- [Rs.24,000/- x 15(multiplier)] towards 'loss of dependency'.
(g) Though the claimants have produced medical bills marked at Ex.P.13 and have claimed that they have incurred
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR medical expenses of Rs.82,000/-, in terms of the Second Schedule of the MV Act, the claimants would be entitled to maximum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, in terms of the Second Schedule, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium; and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate.
8. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation as under:
1) Loss of Dependency Rs. 3,60,000/-
2) Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
3) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/-
4) Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/-
5) Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500/-
TOTAL Rs. 3,84,500/-
The claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,84,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
9. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The above appeal is allowed in part.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13727-DB MFA No.101491 of 2018 HC-KAR
(ii) The judgment and award, dated 03.02.2018, passed in MVC No.312/2016 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, dismissing the claim petition is hereby set aside, and it is held that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,84,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
(iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
Registry to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 53