Karnataka High Court
Hoorbanu And Ors vs Yonus Saleem And Ors on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202189 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202189 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200035 OF 2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.202189/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. HOORBANU W/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H.NO.8-13-517B, MILATH NAGAR,
KALABUARGI-585 101.
Digitally signed 2. SAKINA ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. HEENA ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. FARHANA ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
5. AAYESHA SIDDIGN D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
6. NAZMEEN ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:16 YEARS MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202189 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019
HC-KAR
7. MAHEK ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:14 YEARS MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
8. IKRAMODIN D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:12 YEARS MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
9. MOHAMMED ISMAIL D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:10 YEARS MINORS, OCC: STUDENT,
APPELLANTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE MINORS
U/G OF NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
R/O. H.NO.8-13-517B, MILATH NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. YONUS SALEEM S/O SHAIK BHIKKAN,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 9-08-18/B, CHOTA BAZAR GOLCONDA FORT,
HYDERABAD-584 101.
2. THE MANAGER,
IFFCO TOKO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
C/O. ASIAN ARCADE COMPLEX, ANAND HOTEL,
KALBURAGI-585 101.
3. RAGHU KRUPAKANTH S/O BUCHILINGAM,
R/O. H.NO.18-58 GANDHI NAGAR, COLONY
SHADNAGAR, MAHABOOR NAGAR,
ANDHRA PRADESH-509 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M. ADVOCATE, FOR R2,
SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R3,
R1-V/O DATED 12.11.2019 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V. ACT 1988,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202189 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.353/2013
BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
KALABURAGI ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.16,14,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.87,70,000/- WITH
12% INTEREST AND DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION TO
THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.
IN MFA.CROB NO.200035/2019:
BETWEEN:
RAGHU KRUPAKANTH S/O BUCHILINGAM,
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.18-58, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY, SHADNAGAR
MAHABOOB NAGAR,
ANDHRA PRADESH-509 001.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HOORBANU W/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SAKINA ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. HEENA ANJUMA D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. FARHANA ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202189 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019
HC-KAR
5. AAYESHA SIDDIGN D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
6. NAZMEEN ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE: 17 YEARS MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
7. MAHEK ANJUM D/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE: 15 YEARS MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
8. IKRAMODIN S/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE: 13 YEARS MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
9. MOHAMMED ISMAIL S/O MD. SYED LATIF,
AGE: 11 YEARS, MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE MINORS U/G OF
NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1,
ALL ARE R/O. H.NO.8-13-517 B, MILLAT NAGAR,
GULBARGA- 585 101.
10. YOUNUS SALEEM S/O SHAIK BHIKKAN,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O. 9-08-18/B, CHOTA BAZAR,
GOLCONDA FORT,
HYDERABAD- 500 008.
11. THE MANAGER,
IFFCO, TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
C/O. ASIAN ARCADE COMPLEX,
ANAND HOTEL,
GULBARGA- 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE, FOR R1 TO R9,
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE, FOR R11,
R10-V/O DATED 21.06.2021 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA CROSS-OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER
41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202189 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019
HC-KAR
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2018
PASSED BY THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.353/2013 AND PLEASED TO
DISMISS THE MFA NO.202189/2018 FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS IN RESPECT OF CROSS-OBJECTOR.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) MFA No.202189/2018 is filed by the claimants, while MFA Crob. No.200035/2019 is filed by the erstwhile owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2018, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi [for short 'Tribunal'], in MVC No.353/2013.
2. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.87,70,000/- on account of the death of Md. Sayed Latif in a road accident on 03.05.2013. The claimants claimed that the deceased was a carpenter, employed in Saudi Arabia and was earning -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR Rs.55,000/- per month. As a result of his death, the claimants claimed that they were deprived of a sole bread earner in the family. Hence, they claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, determined the compensation as under:
1 LOVE AND AFFECTION Rs.2,00,000=00 2 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Rs.40,000=00 3 FUNERAL EXPENSES & Rs.15,000=00 TRANSPORTATION CHARGES 4 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Rs.13,44,000=00 5 LOSS OF ESTATE Rs.15,000=00 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.16,14,000=00 The Tribunal directed the erstwhile owner and the present owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and exonerated the insurance company from liability. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants are in appeal, while the erstwhile owner of the vehicle of the offending vehicle has filed a cross objection.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was a carpenter employed in Saudi Arabia and the same is evident from the fact that the deceased had a visa valid up till May-2012. He contends that even before the deceased could go back to Saudi Arabia, he met with an accident and died. He contends that the deceased was earning Rs.55,000/- and the same is evident from Ex.P12-Salary Certificate. He thus contends that the Tribunal instead of considering the said income, has taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- as his notional monthly income. He therefore prays that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced by adding future prospects at 25% and also to award loss of consortium to all the claimants. He also submits that the insurer be directed to pay and recover he compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer specifically contended that it had not issued any policy covering -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR the offending vehicle. He also contended that the claimants had not disclosed the policy number and therefore it was not in a position to verify whether the vehicle in question was covered under a policy of insurance or not. He further contends that the Tribunal after noticing the contentions, had recorded a finding that neither the claimants nor the owner of the vehicle/respondent No.1 had proved that the vehicle was insured and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. He therefore contends that the policy of insurance marked as Ex.R1 is not proved before the Tribunal and hence the liability imposed upon the owners of the vehicle to pay the compensation is just and proper. He also submitted that now the cross-objector has appeared before the Court and has affirmed that he had not subscribed to a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question for the period between 22.06.2012 and 21.06.2013. Therefore he contends that the policy of insurance marked as Ex.R1 is fake and cannot be acted upon.
6. The learned counsel for the erstwhile owner of the offending vehicle/cross-objector on the other hand submits that -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR the cross-objector had purchased the offending vehicle on 05.07.2012, and the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was purportedly drawn in the name of the erstwhile owner for the period from 22.06.2012 till 21.06.2013. He therefore contends that the erstwhile owner could not have purchased a policy of insurance even before he had purchased the vehicle. He contends that the vehicle was sold to respondent No.1 on 11.12.2012. He therefore contends that the erstwhile owner is not liable to pay the compensation as the liability to pay the compensation was only upon the respondent No.1, who was the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. He thus submits that the cross-objector should be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation determined. He also contends that the policy of insurance marked as Ex.R1 is on the face of it fake, as the cross-objector had not availed such a policy and such a policy could not have been availed as the erstwhile owner had purchased the vehicle only on 05.07.2012, while the policy of insurance was issued on 22.06.2012 to cover the period upto 21.06.2013.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.200300/2025 and connected appeals in similar circumstances held that it is the duty of the insurer to pay and recover the compensation. He also referred to the judgment of High Court of Sikkim in the case of The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Padam Bahadur Rai and Others, where it was held that the third party is not concerned whether the policy was fake or not and that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation.
8. Respondent No.1 has chosen not to contest these appeals.
9. We have considered the submissions made by he learned counsels for all the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10. The claimants had filed the claim petition claiming that respondent No.1 was the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 was the insurer. The claimants did not furnish any particulars of the insurance at the time of filing
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR the claim petition or till objections were filed by the insurer. The insurer specifically contested the claim petition and claimed that it had not issued a policy of insurance covering the offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition and claimed that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. He however did not enter the witness box. The policy of insurance was marked by consent as Ex.R1. It appears that the policy was drawn in the name of the cross- objector who was the erstwhile owner of the vehicle for the period 22.06.2012 till 21.06.2013. The 'B' extract of the offending vehicle which was marked as Ex.P.17 shows that the cross-objector purchased the vehicle in question on 05.07.2012. Therefore it is improbable that the cross-objector could have availed a policy of insurance in his name even before he purchased the vehicle in question. Ideally the policy of insurance must have been in the name of the then owner who sold the property to the cross-objector. Therefore, it is more than evident that the policy of insurance which was marked as Ex.R1 is fake.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR
11. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to recover the compensation from the insurer and whether liberty can be given to the insurer to recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
12. A policy of insurance is a contract of indemnity whereby an insurer agrees to indemnify the owner against any damages payable on account of use of the motor vehicle in a public place. When the policy itself is fake, there is no obligation cast on the insurer to indemnify an owner with whom it did not have a contract. Therefore, the present owner of the offending vehicle cannot avoid liability relying upon a fake insurance policy. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants in MFA No.200300/2025 and connected appeals are clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, though the Insurance Company claimed that the policy was fake, it did not take any steps to prove it. In the instant case, the cross-objector who is the erstwhile owner of the vehicle has appeared before the Tribunal and has stated that the policy marked as Ex.R1 was not availed by him. Therefore, the claimants cannot take advantage of the judgment passed
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.200300/2025. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, namely respondent No.1 in MFA No.202189/2018.
13. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, through the deceased had traveled to Saudi Arabia, he had returned back to India. The Visa issued by Saudi Arabia had expired by the time the deceased died in the road accident. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the deceased continued his employment in Saudi Arabia. Consequently, in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and deducted 1/5th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied proper multiplier. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have added 25% of income i.e., Rs.2,500/- to income towards future prospects, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma. Thus, total income comes Rs.12,500/-. Accordingly,
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR the compensation towards loss of dependency is re-determined as follows:
Rs.12,500 x 12 x 14 x 4/5 = 16,80,000/-
14. Further, the claimants being wife and children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, in total Rs.3,60,000/- and they are also entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In total the claimants are entitled to Rs.20,70,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization from respondent No.1 in the appeal.
15. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. MFA No.202189/2018 filed by the claimants is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation of Rs.16,14,000/-
determined by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,70,000/-.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1701-DB MFA No. 202189 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200035 of 2019 HC-KAR iii. The enhanced compensation shall be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1 in MFA No.202189/2018) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
iv. MFA Crob.No.200035/2019 is also allowed and the cross-objector is exonerated from liability to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal as well as this Court in MFA No.202189/2018.
v. Any amount deposited by the cross-objector shall be released to him.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67