Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ashwini W/O Kalyan Halagekar vs Mr. Nanaso S/O Kisan Narute on 21 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102291 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102060 OF 2017
IN M.F.A. NO.102291 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER ,
CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, DARE HOUSE NO.2,
NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001,
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE,
BELAGAVI-590 010.
2. KUMARI KALYANI
D/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 03 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE,
BELAGAVI-590 010.
3. SMT. RENUKA W/O. KRISHNA
@ KRISHNAJI HALAGEKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KUDACHI VILLAGE, BELAGAVI-591 311.
4. MR. NANASO S/O. KISAN NARUTE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT/POST: SASTEWADI,
TALUK: BARAMATI, DIST: PUNE,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA-413 102.
(OWNER OF TATA GOODS VEHICLE
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.MH.42/B-8744)
5. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. TUKARAM JAGTAP,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT/POST: YELIV, TALUK: KHATAV,
DIST: SATARA, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-415 505.
(OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.MH.11/5358)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED;
V/O/DATED 25.03.2019 R5 IS APPEAL AGAINST REJECTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED BY THE X
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
MACT, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.1946/2014 WITH COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.102060 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
2. KUMARI KALYANI D/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 01 MONTH, OCC: NIL,
REPT. BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER,
ASHWINI W/O. KALYAN HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SMT. RENUKA W/O. KRISHNA
@ KRISHNAJI HALAGEKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KANGRALI B.K. VILLAGE,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MR. NANASO S/O. KISAN NARUTE,
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT/POST: SASTEWADI,
TQ: BARAMATI, DIST: PUNE-043,
STATE MAHARASHTRA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, DARE HOUSE NO.2,
NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
3. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. TUKARAM JAGTAP,
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT POST: YELIV, TQ: KHATAV,
DIST: SATARA-415110,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
26.11.2016 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT AT BELAGAVI IN M.V.C.
NO.1946/2014, AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED
FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB
MFA No. 102291 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) These two appeals are filed by the insurer and the claimants. The insurer, in MFA No.102291/2017, disputes the involvement of its vehicle in the accident and denies liability. The claimant, in MFA No.102060/2017, seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded. Since both appeals arise out of a common judgment and award, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Though the appeals were listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were taken up for final disposal.
3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act'), seeking compensation for the death of Sri Kalyan in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.06.2014 at about 8:30 p.m., involving a Bajaj -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-11/AF-0372 and a Tata goods vehicle bearing registration No.MH-42/B-8744. As per the averments in the claim petition, the deceased was employed as a Field Assistant and was earning Rs.13,306/- per month. It is stated that he was the sole earning member of the family and was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata goods vehicle.
4. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed their objections. Respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, denied the entire case of the claimants, including the age, occupation, and income of the deceased. However, Respondent No.1 did not dispute the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and contended that the said vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It was further submitted that, in the event of compensation being -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR awarded, the liability to pay the same rests with the insurer.
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed detailed objections, contending that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and disputing the involvement of the alleged Tata goods vehicle. It was further contended that the death had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself. In furtherance to this, the insurer asserted that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, it was submitted that the insurer is not liable to indemnify Respondent No.1.
6. In support of their claim, Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and produced 22 documents, marked as Exhibits P1 to P22. On behalf of Respondent -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR No.2, its official/representative was examined as RW.1, and 5 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R5.
7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata goods vehicle and that the death of the deceased was a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,128/- after deducting professional tax, and considering the age of the deceased as 27 years, the Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Accordingly, it awarded a sum of Rs.17,85,408/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded compensation under other conventional heads.
8. Sri S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, submits that there was a delay of 17 days in lodging the complaint and that the involvement of the insured vehicle is doubtful. It is contended that the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR description of the vehicle in the complaint and the panchanama are contradictory. Learned counsel submitted that, although the fact that the deceased died due to the accident is not in dispute, the involvement of the alleged vehicle has not been conclusively established. It is further submitted that if, as contended by the petitioners, the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in a hit- and-run case, the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act is not maintainable.
9. Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents, submits that the owner of the vehicle has not disputed the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. He further submits that although the accident occurred on 01.06.2014 and the complaint was lodged after a delay of 17 days, the delay was due to the death of a family member, which is a justifiable reason. Learned counsel also contends that the police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet, and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR according to the said charge sheet, the involvement of the Tata goods vehicle in the accident is clearly established.
9.1 Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It has contended that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are inadequate and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, with a 10% enhancement every three years from the date of the accident, as per the settled law.
10. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, the points that arise for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata goods vehicle bearing registration No.MH-42/B-8744?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal warrants interference by this Court?
11. The answer to Point No.2 would depend upon the finding of this Court on Point No.1. Hence, Point No.1 is taken up for detailed consideration. Regarding Point No.1:
12. It is the specific case of the insurer that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and has been falsely implicated and the complaint having been registered belatedly, 17 days after the incident. It is further contended that the police themselves registered the complaint on 18.06.2014 in relation to the accident that occurred on 01.06.2014. In the statement of objections filed by the insurer, a categorical plea has been raised regarding the non-involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident. In view of the specific allegation of false implication, the burden lies on the claimants to establish the involvement of the said vehicle. This requirement gains more relevance in the light of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR fact that the panchanama at Ex.P-8 was drawn on 02.06.2014, whereas the complaint and FIR are dated 18.06.2014. It is rather peculiar that the panchanama was drawn even before the FIR was registered, or conversely, that the FIR came to be registered 16 days after the preparation of the panchanama.
13. It is also noteworthy that, while the FIR and charge sheet mention the registration number of the vehicle, the complaint and the panchanama, though they contain a general description of the vehicle, do not record its registration number. Another crucial aspect is the absence of any evidence explaining how the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle was ascertained. The record is completely silent in this regard. Furthermore, as evident from Ex.P-4, the Khabari Jabab was recorded based on the personal information of the Assistant Police Inspector who was on duty at the location of the alleged accident. If the accident of involving the insured vehicle had happened on the alleged date in the presence of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR complainant, nothing prevented reporting such incident. Failure to do this, the submission of insurer assumed significance. The remaining evidence on record establishes the factum of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased due to injuries sustained therein. However, the evidence on record goes no further and is limited to establishing these two aspects alone.
14. Neither the claimants nor the police authorities have offered any explanation for the delay in the registration of the FIR. In this regard, though the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, in the State of Maharashtra, FIRs are registered only after completion of a preliminary investigation, such a submission is not supported by any statutory provision. Exhibits P-10, P-11, and P-12-Accident Report Forms issued by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer dated 24.06.2014 indicate certain damages to the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident. However, these documents also give rise to doubt due to the delay in the inspection process. Although
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR the accident is stated to have occurred on 01.06.2014, the inspection of the vehicle was conducted only on 20.06.2014. The delay in subjecting the vehicle to inspection by the Transport Authority remains unexplained and lends credence to the contention raised by the insurer.
15. The Tribunal framed an issue regarding the death of the deceased and the involvement of the offending TATA goods vehicle. However, the Tribunal, merely relying on the complainant's denial of the suggestion that the vehicle was falsely implicated for the purpose of making a compensation claim, proceeded to hold that the evidence adduced by the claimants was sufficient to prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal has committed a manifest error in not recording any specific finding on the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR
16. While the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained therein were not seriously in dispute before the Tribunal, the crucial issue requiring adjudication was the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. The Tribunal's conclusion in awarding compensation, without addressing this crucial aspect, is therefore without any legal or factual foundation.
17. This Court has also perused the evidence available on record. A comparative reading of the FIR at Ex.P-1, the complaint at Ex.P-3, the panchanama at Ex.P-8, and the charge sheet at Ex.P-13 reveals contradictions with respect to the description of the vehicle. Even if minor discrepancies in the description pertaining only to the make of the vehicle are to be disregarded, the evidence adduced by the claimants falls short of establishing the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR
18. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is not supported by any cogent evidence. Further, the Tribunal appears to have misread and mis- appreciated the evidence on record while arriving at its conclusion. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
19. The submission of the learned counsel for the claimants in that the income adopted for computing compensation is incorrect and without merit. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the claim regarding the monthly salary of the deceased. The age of the deceased and the applicable deductions were not seriously disputed. However, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads warrants interference by this Court. The compensation awarded towards loss of consortium is on the lower side. Each of the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- in view of the law laid down by
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others1. Furthermore, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram2, the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and consortium is liable to be enhanced by 10% every three years. However, in view of the answer to Point No.1, this Court does not find it necessary to re-compute the compensation. Since the claimants have failed to establish the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, the claim petition is liable to be rejected.
20. For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the insurance company in M.F.A.No.102291/2017 is allowed.
(ii) The appeal filed by the claimants in M.F.A.No.102060/2017 is dismissed.1
(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2018) SCC 130
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8994-DB MFA No. 102291 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 102060 of 2017 HC-KAR
(iii) The judgment and award dated 26.11.2016 on the file of X Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi in M.V.C. No.1946/2014 is set aside.
(iv) The claim petition in M.V.C.No.1946/2014 is rejected.
(v) The insurer is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit, if any.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2