1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

M.F.A. No.30740/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.

INDUBAI

D/O NEELKANTAPPA

(W/O SHIVARAJ)

AGE. 40 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD.

2 .

NAGAMMA D/O NEELKANTAPPA

(W/O SANGAPPA DESAI,

AGE. 32 YEARS

OCC. HOUSEHOLD.

BOTH R/O CHIMMA IDLAI,

TQ. CHINCHOLI DIST. GULBARGA

NOW R/AT HOUSE NO.11-316

N.R. COLONY BRAHMPUR

GULBARGA-586101.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI BABU H METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1 .

SHIVARAJ

S/O SHANKREPPA DESAI

MAJOR,

OCC. OWNER OF HERO HONDA

MOTOR CYCLE,

R/O VILLAGE CHIMMA IDALI

TQ. CHINCHOLI DIST. GULBARGA

2 .

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

2

DIVISIONAL OFFICE,

DR. JAWALI COMOPLEX,

SUPER MARKET GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD-22-01-14)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT,

PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT

AND AWARD DATED 05.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.962/2011

BY III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JACT, GULBARGA AND FOR

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of the compensation awarded by the III

Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga (henceforth

referred to as 'Tribunal', for short) in terms of the

judgment

and

award

dated

05.11.2012

in

M.V.C.

No.962/2011.

2.

The claim petition discloses that the claimants

are the legal representatives of deceased Mallamma. It is

stated that on 22.05.2011, the deceased and respondent

No.1 were travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-32/U-9646. When they reached near Marjapur- M

3

cross on Bidar-Mannaekhelli road, respondent No. 1 lost

control over the motorcycle and dashed against a

pedestrian. The deceased fell down and suffered grievous

injuries. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Bidar

and thereafter she was shifted to Sunshine Hospital,

Secunderabad. She was treated as an inpatient between

22.05.2011 to 22.06.2011 and thereafter she was treated

as an inpatient at Shree Hospital, Bidar from 23.06.2011

to 27.06.2011. However she succumbed to the injuries on

29.6 2011. The claimants contended that they had spent a

sum of `6,00,000/- towards her treatment and a sum of

`50,000/- towards transportation. They claimed that

deceased was earning a sum of `10,000/- per month which

she was contributing to the family. Therefore, they have

filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of a sum of

`20,00,000/-.

3.

The owner of the motorcycle denied the

accident as well as the relationship of the claimants with

the deceased. He contended that the vehicle was insured

4

as on the date of the accident and therefore, the insurer

was liable to pay the compensation.

4.

The insurer contested the claim petition and

claimed

that

the

claimants

were

allegedly married

daughters of the deceased and therefore, they were not

entitled to the loss of dependency. It generally denied the

accident and the entitlement of the claimants for

compensation.

5.

Based on these rival contentions, the claim

petition was set down for trial. The claimant No. 1 was

examined as PW1, who marked Exs.P-1 to 14, while the

respondents did not produce any evidence, but marked the

copy of the policy.

6.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and

negligent riding by respondent No. 1.

7.

Insofar as the claim for compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal refused to grant compensation

towards loss of dependency, as the claimants were married

5

daughters. It, however, granted compensation towards

loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expen