Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Rajashree And Ors on 29 October, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB
MFA No. 200020 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200020 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM
M.S GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR NO.2
NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI.
(THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA
AND:
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. RAJASHREE
W/O LATE UMESH SHINDE,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. ALOK
S/O LATE UMESH SHINDE
AGE: 8 YEARS, MINOR U/G R 1
3. TARUN
S/O LATE UMESH SHINDE
AGE: 14 YEARS MINOR U/G R 1
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB
MFA No. 200020 of 2020
HC-KAR
4. KONDABAI
W/O ROHIDAS SHINDE,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
5. ROHIDAS
S/O PUNDALIK SHINDE,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: CONTRACTOR,
ALL R/O: ALGUD VILLAGE,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR.
6. M. D. RIYASATH L. MANSOORI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
(OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.MH-04/EL-740),
R/O: 131 YUSUF BLDG, AZAD MAIDAN,
DHAMANKAR NAKA,
OPP: STAR HOTEL, BHIWANDI SO THANE,
MAHARASHTRA - 421 308.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R5;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
V/O DATED 15.09.2021, NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2019 PASSED THE II
ADDL. DIST.SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, AT BIDAR
SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN MVC NO.90/2015, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB
MFA No. 200020 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.09.2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Bidar, in MVC No.90/2015.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that deceased Umesh was working as Contractor in Ghatkopar, Mumbai and on 07.11.2014, when he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-03/AY-6615 near Jogeshwari JV link road, Ambedkar Garden, at that time, a tempo bearing Reg.No.MH-04/EL-740 came from backside in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said motorcycle, due to which he fell down and the tempo passed on his head and he died on the spot.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB MFA No. 200020 of 2020 HC-KAR
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, respondent No.2 - Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.1 before the claims Tribunal did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence, was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of respondent No.2, its officer was examined as RW-1 and another witness as RW-2 and two documents were exhibited as Ex.R1 and R5. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB MFA No. 200020 of 2020 HC-KAR offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.58,78,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed respondent No.2- Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident and he was doing building contract work and having his firm by name "Alok Enterprises" which was registered in the year 2012. He was earning Rs.60,000/- per month. He was an income tax assessee. He contended that since the business started in the year 2012, he has not filed income tax returns for the earlier years. Immediately after his death, the legal representatives have filed income tax returns. Considering the income tax returns, Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB MFA No. 200020 of 2020 HC-KAR at Rs.4,96,475/- as per the income tax returns filed for the year 2013-14 as per Ex.P6. The income tax returns of the firm was also filed for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 as marked as Ex.R3 to R5. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Bhargava and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others in SLP (Civil) No.10664/2019 disposed of 22.04.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased only on the basis of income tax returns filed for the year 2013-14 which was filed by his legal representatives after the death of deceased Umesh. The legal representatives of the deceased have produced income tax returns for the subsequent years. He further contended that the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB MFA No. 200020 of 2020 HC-KAR
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that Sri.Umesh died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.11.2014. As per Ex.P9, Certificate of Registration, he has registered his contract business in the year 2012. As per the evidence of PW-1, the deceased started his contract business from 2013. Therefore, for the previous year, he has not filed income tax returns. After the death of the deceased, the legal representatives have filed returns for the year 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Nidhi Bhargava (supra) has dealt with this issue. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference:
"15. The High Court interfered and reduced the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 had to be excluded from consideration. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act, for the period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB MFA No. 200020 of 2020 HC-KAR concerned, and not on the date on which it is filed with the Income Tax Department. When faced with Returns for different Assessment Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average income therefrom or choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt one of the afore- noted two courses of action, bearing in nature the social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court in the present case has dealt with the matter in such a casual and superficial way where the rightful claim of the appellants under a welfare legislation has been drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified. As pointed out in Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563:
'13. ... In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the '... Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward- looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6391-DB MFA No. 200020 of 2020 HC-KAR providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future. ...' ...'2"
(underlined in original)
11. In view of the above, the Tribunal is just in assessing the loss of dependency. Considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
13. The amount in deposit is transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62