Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101680 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104128 OF 2018 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.101680/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KURI NEELAMMA W/O. LATE KURI HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE. 45 YEARS, 2. MINOR KURI HULIGAMMA
D/O. LATE KURI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE. 18 YEARS,
NOTE. 1. MINOR APPELLANT NO.2 IS NOW MAJOR AS PER THE MAJORITY ACT 1875, HENCE SINGED IN THE VAKALATH.
2. THE APPELLANT NO.3 IS DEAD ON 29.05.2020, HENCE NOT ARRIVED AS A PARTY BEFORE THIS APPEAL.
(PRESENTLY ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF TALUR ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIKRAM S/O. VENKATESH NAIK, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR–TRAILER, BEARING NO.KA-35/TA-4738/4739,
R/O. BANDE BASAPURA THANDA,
KUDLIGI TALUKA, BALLARI DIST-583135.
2. HANUMANAYAK S/O. SEVANAYAKA, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF THE
TRACTOR-TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-35/TA-4738/4739, R/O. # 36, BANDE BASAPURA THANA,
KUDILLI TALUKA, BALLARI DIST-583135.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. BALLARI-583101.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.721/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO MEET THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
IN MFA NO.104128/2018
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BALLARI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KURI NEELAMMA W/O. LATE KURI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN.
2. MINOR KURI HULIGAMMA D/O. LATE KURI HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
MOTHER SMT. KURI NEELAMMA W/O. LATE KURI HANUMANTHAPPA.
3. KURI GUNDAMMA W/O. LATE KURI PAKKIRAPPA, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE-WIFE,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF PURA VILLAGE, KAMBLI POST, HUVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT TALUR ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
4. VIKRAM S/O. VENKATESH NAIK, AGE: 27 YEARS, DRIVER OF TT UNIT BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-35/TA-4738/4739, R/O. BANDE BASAPUR TANDA, KUDLIGI TALUK,
DIST: BALLARI-583101.
5. HANUMANAYAKA S/O. SEVANAYAKA, AGE: 57 YEARS, DRIVER OF TT UNIT BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-35/TA-4738/4739,
R/O. BANDE BASAPUR TANDA, KUDLIGI TALUK, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED (R2 MINOR REP. BY R1))
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.721/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORDER
i. MFA No. 101680 of 2021 is partly allowed
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified;
iii. The petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of ₹12,52,056/- as against ₹11,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹1,32,056/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition till its realization;
iv. Insofar as the apportionment is concerned, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 each are entitled to 50% of the compensation respectively;
v. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment;
vi. The petitioners are not entitled to interest for a delayed period of 516 days in filing the appeal;
vii. MFA No. 104128 of 2018 is dismissed
viii. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal;
ix. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
PA | CT: UMD | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
These appeals arise out of a judgment and award dated 25.08.2018 passed in MVC No. 721 of 2016 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-XII, Ballari ('Tribunal' for short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
2.1. On 29.10.2015, a tractor-trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-35/TA-4738/4739 was loaded with sugarcane to unload at Vijaya Nagara Gangapura Sugar Factory and when the said vehicle was passing in front of Durgamma Temple in Pura Village, the driver of the tractor-trailer drove vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the said vehicle fell down on one Kuri Hanumanthappa. He was admitted in a Government Hospital and thereafter for further treatment, was shifted to Chigateri District Hospital, Davanagere, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased Kuri Hanumanthappa, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
2.2. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections contending that, the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
2.3. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, and the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
2.4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
2.5. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined petitioner No.1 as PW1, and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined its Officer as RW1, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
2.6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in-part with costs vide judgment dated 25.08.2018and awarded a compensation of ₹11,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, and held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.
3. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed an appeal in MFA No.101680 of 2021, and the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the liability fastened against it, preferred an appeal in MFA No.104128 of 2018.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the deceased was an Agriculturist and was earning ₹3,50,000/- per annum, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the notional income at ₹7,500/-, which is on the lower side. He submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the trailer was not insured with the Insurance Company. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner, and to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
7. Per
