IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100592 OF 2022 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SMT. YASHAMIN ALLIBEG @ ABDULRASHID MULLA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. VIVEKANAND ROAD, GADAG, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

GIRIJA A.

BYAHATTI

1. PRAVEEN S/O. THAMMAJI KULKARNI, Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD R/O. C/O. DR. D.V. KULAKARNI, ”VASANTH BURBURE LAYOUT, PANCHAXARI NAGAR, ANNADANESHWAR NAGAR, MASARI, GADAG-582101.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, RENUKA ARCAE, STATION ROAD, OPP. THONTADARAYA MATH, GADAG-582101.

3. ASIF S/O. MAKBULSAB DODDAMANI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. KALASAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-582103.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1;

SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2;

R3-SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GADAG AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED JUDGE IN M.V.C. NO.206/2015 DATED 02.11.2019 AND ENHANCE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION;

COST OF THE APPEAL AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.G.S.Hulmani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.206/2015 dated 02.11.2019. Exhibiting its opinion that the appellant cannot be termed to the legal heir of her deceased mother and thereby she is not entitled for any compensation towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.56,000/- only as compensation covering the heads medical expenses, loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Smt.Khairunnisa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2015. Her husband pre-deceased her. The only legal heir is the appellant herein who is none other than her daughter. The deceased performed the marriage of the appellant. The appellant was residing at her matrimonial home. However, the deceased as a domestic helper was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was contributing major portion of her earnings to support her daughter at her in-laws' place. On the death of the deceased, the appellant lost the source of livelihood. Therefore she filed a petition claiming compensation. However holding that a married daughter cannot be considered to be the dependent of her mother, the Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation under the head loss of dependency. Learned counsel thereby seeks to do justice.

4. On the other hand, the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant was living with her husband and child separately as on the date of accident. Therefore the appellant cannot be termed to be the dependent of the deceased and thus the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the appellant to grant compensation towards loss of dependency.

5. It is not in dispute that except the appellant herein, there are no other legal heirs to the deceased. Equally it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 50 years by the date of accident. Thus whatever amount the deceased earns, keeping aside the amount required for her livelihood and her necessities, the rest of the amount would be contributed for the welfare of her daughter that is the app