Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
T.M.NADAF, J.
Shri M. Sharath Kumar, S/o Late Ningamma – Appellant
Versus
Shri Gopal S/o Bettegowda – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7197 of 2021 (MV-D)
Decided on : 07-08-2025
For the Appellant :SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADV.
Dependency proof is essential for compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, and unregistered adoption deeds require substantial supporting evidence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation - Claimant filed for compensation regarding the death of adoptive mother due to rash riding of motorcycle - Tribunal dismissed claim on grounds of insufficient evidence to prove dependency. (Paras 6, 16)
(B) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Provisions regarding adoption deed - Unregistered adoption deed can be looked into but requires substantial proof of adoption - claimant failed to provide necessary supporting documentation for his claim. (Paras 8, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contended he was the adoptive son of the deceased but failed to adequately prove dependency as required under the law. Evidence included an unregistered adoption deed and a death certificate showing a relationship post-mortem.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition, as the appellant did not prove himself as a dependent legal heir. The actionable negligence of the motorcycle rider was acknowledged, but claim dismissal was upheld due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimant could prove dependency as defined under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Dependency needs to be substantiated by adequate documentation and proof of law; simply presenting an unregistered adoption deed, without sufficient corroboration, is insufficient for claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the need for substantial proof regarding adopted relationships in compensation claims. (Para 2 , 6 , 15) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the adoption deed and its implications for legal dependency. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments from the insurance side regarding insufficient evidence from the appellant. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. determination of the appellant's legal standing was based on the adequacy of supporting documents. (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
T.M.NADAF, J.
This appeal is by the claimant calling in question the judgment and award dated 05.11.2019 in MVC No.574/2018 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya, whereby the claim petition seeking compensation in respect of death of one Ningamma, aged 45 years claiming to be the adoptive mother of the appellant.
2. Brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
i) The appellant claims to be the adoptive son of deceased Ningamma on the basis of an unregistered adoption deed dated 18.11.2003 (Ex.P.10) said to have been executed by his biological parents in favour of deceased Ningamma. From the date of the said adoption deed, he is considered as an adoptive son of deceased Ningamma. He has also produced the death certificate (Ex.P.8) of deceased Ningamma, wherein in the column No.7 which pertains to mentioning of name of husband/wife, his name is shown as Datthu Maga M. Sharath Kumar.
ii) It is the further case of the appellant that he along with his alleged adoptive mother after purchasing food items from the shop of Kiragavalu Thammaiah on 18.09.2017 were waking on the left side of the road on Bannuur-Mandya main road infront of the house of Kempuvanna. At about 7.00 p.m., a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11-EB-0320 came in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed so as to endanger to human life and dashed against the said Ningamma, causing sever injuries on her head, resulting in bleeding from her right ear. Immediately, after the accident she was shifted to Bannur General Hospital, but she was declared as dead on the way to the hospital. The appellant claiming to be the adoptive son of said Ningamma, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V. Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.24,60,000/-
3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 though served remained absent and placed exparte. Respondent No.2 filed objections and denied that the petitioner is the adoptive son and he is not the dependant legal heir within the expression contained under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
4. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, framed the following issues.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 18.09.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with his adopted mother were walking from Kiragavalu Thammaiah shop after purchase of some food item, when they were walking on the left side of the road, near house of Kempuvanna on Bannur-Mandya road, one motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-EB-0320 being ridden by its rider in an actionable rash and negligent manner came from Bannur side had dashed against the petitioner. On account of which petitioner and his mother fell down and thereafter his mother Smt. Ningamma had succumbed to those injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation is so to what quantum and from which of the respondents?
3. What order or award?”
5. The appellant in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked total 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to 11. The contesting respondent No.2 neither led any oral evidence nor got marked any documents on its behalf.
6. The Tribunal upon pleadings and evidence available on record proceeded to answer the issue No.1 in the Affirmative holding that the death of Ningamma is due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. However, proceeded to answer issue No.2 in the Negative on the premise that the petitioner has not placed any sufficient material to prove that he is the dependant legal heir
