SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 942

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C.M. POONACHA
MR SHIVA PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Respondent
MFA 4509/2017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4509 OF 2017 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

MR SHIVA PRASAD

S/O LATLE CHINNAYYA MOOLYA

@ CHENNAIAH

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

R/AT D.NO.3-71/4, MARDHOLI HOUSE

NARIKOMBU VILLAGE

BANTWAL TALUK

PRESENTLY R/AT DEVIKRIPA HOUSE

PADEEL POST AND VILLAGE

MANGALORE TALUK.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

signed by

1. THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL

NIRMALA

INSURANCE CO LTD

DEVI

3RD FLOOR, LALBAGH TOWER

Location: BALLALBAGH, M.G.ROAD

HIGH MANGALORE 575001

COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

KARNATAKA

2. MR. K ABDUL BASHEER

S/O K MOHAMMED RIYAZ

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

R/O D.NO.1-45/1A,

GUDDEMELU HOUSE, ULI VILLAGE,

BANTWAL TALUK 574153.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1

NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 24.05.2023)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1036/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant impugning the judgment and award dated 06.01.2017 passed in MVC No. 1036/2015 by the IV Additional District Judge And Member, MACT, Mangaluru, D.K, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', whereunder the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.

2,91,200/- together with interest at 6% p.a.

2. The primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the deceased is the mother of the claimant and the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of dependency by recording a finding that the claimant is not dependent on the deceased. It is contended that having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Birender and Ors.,, (2020) 11 SCC 356 the claimant is entitled to be treated as a dependent and compensation be awarded accordingly. It is also contended that the compensation on various other heads is on the lower side.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

4. It is forthcoming that the deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of the accident, i.e., on 08.06.2015. Admittedly, the claimant was the son of the deceased. In the cross examination, the claimant has deposed that he was unmarried and was working as a coolie. He has further deposed that there was no bank account in the name of his mother-deceased.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Birender and Ors2, considering a fact situation wherein the claimant was a married son and was also earning held that he was required to be construed as a legal representative.

Accordingly, it held as under:

“It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not the limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.”

6. Having regard to the judgment in the case of Birender and Ors,2 the claimant is entit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top