Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Extension Counter, Chittapur Road, Yadgir, Through Its Manager, (Now Represented By Authorized Signatory, Kalaburagi) – Appellant
Versus
Kishan Lal S/O Gouri Shanker – Respondent
MFA No. 202432 of 2018, C/W MFA No. 202372 of 2018, MFA No. 202395 of 2018
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI
For the Respondent: SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL
The court upheld the insurer's liability after confirming vehicle identity, recalibrating compensation based on income assessments and future prospects according to established principles.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claims for compensation - Appeals regarding liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal - Insurance company contested its liability based on vehicle identification discrepancies - Legal heirs of deceased, asserting wrongful death, sought higher compensation citing underestimation of income and denial of future prospects. (Paras 1-3, 20)
(B) Liability - The court confirmed the identity of the vehicle and ruled on the insurer's liability based on sufficient evidence, dismissing appeals questioning the tribunal’s findings. (Paras 6-11)
(C) Compensation - Court recalibrated loss of dependency, consortium, and other heads of compensation due to corrections in income estimation and negligence in assessing future prospects, enhancing total compensation to Rs.14,87,604/- and Rs.2,73,732/- respectively. (Paras 12-19)
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. MFA No.202432/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company and MFA No.202395/2018 is filed by claimants challenging the Judgment and award passed in MVC No.202/2016 dated 11.10.2018 by Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Yadgiri (for short ‘ the tribunal’)
2. MFA No.202372/2018 is filed by claimants and MFA No.202433/2018 is filed by Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award passed in MVC No.203/2016 dated 11.10.2018 by Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Yadgiri (for short ‘the tribunal’)
3. Facts leading to filing of MVC No.202/2016 are that on 21.04.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., on Yadgir – Narayanpet main road, near Bairamkonda Village, claimant was proceeding in auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-36/X-1715 along with others. At that time, driver of Jeep bearing No.AP-02/N-7107 drove his Jeep in rash and negligent manner, high speed, came from opposite direction on wrong side and dashed to auto rickshaw, as a result of which claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant has filed claim petition. The tribunal has awarded compensation. The claimants have preferred appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has preferred appeal questioning its liability.
4. Facts leading to filing of MVC No.203/2016 are that on 21.04.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., on Yadgir – Narayanpet main road, near Bairamkonda Village, the deceased–Sabanna was proceeding in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-36/X-1715 along with others. At that time, driver of the Jeep bearing No.AP-02/N-7107 drove his Jeep in rash and negligent manner, high speed, came from opposite direction in wrong side and dashed to auto rickshaw, as a result of which Sabanna sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital while taking treatment. Legal heirs of the deceased–Sabanna have filed claim petition. The tribunal has awarded compensation. The claimants i.e. legal representatives of the deceased have preferred appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has filed appeal questioning its liability.
5. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that motor vehicle inspector has inspected the Jeep involved in the accident and has given his report at Ex.R1 and in that the number of vehicle examined is mentioned as AP-02/N-7057. She contends that vehicle involved in the case is AP-02/N-7107 and that vehicle is not inspected by motor vehicle inspector. Therefore, there is doubt arises which vehicle is involved in the accident and which Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. She further submits that the said motor vehicle inspector has been examined as R.W.1. On these grounds, she prays to exonerate the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation amount.
7. Learned counsel for appellants in both appeals would contend that motor vehicle inspector has been examined as R.W.1 and in his chief-examination he has specifically stated that he has examined Jeep bearing AP- 02/N-7107. In requisition–Ex.P.2 the Jeep number is mentioned as AP-02/N-7057 and in his report –Ex.R.1 also there is mention of vehicle examined is AP-07/N-7057. Considering the same, the Insurer of Jeep bearing No.AP- 02/N-7107 is liable to pay compensation amount. He further submits that considering the said aspect, the tribunal has rightly fixed liability on the Insurance company to pay compensation i.e., Insurance Company of vehicle No.AP-02/N-7107.
8. Learned counsel for appellants in MFA No.202372/2018 submits that, the deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of accident i.e., 21.04.2016 and he left behind claimants–legal heirs who are five in numbers. The Tribunal has erred in taking income of Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.8,750/- as per chart. He further submits that the tribunal has not taken future prospects. He further submits that as claimants are five in numbers, they are entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per head. With these, he prays to enhancement of com
