- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101751 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOUSABI W/O. SHOUKATALI DANGE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK. 2. MUSTAK S/O. SHOUKATALI DANGE, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SCRAP BUSINESS, R/O: LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK. 3. IMTIYAZ S/O. SHOUKATALI DANGE AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SCRAP BUSINESS, R/O: LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK. 4. SALIM S/O. SHOUKATALI DANGE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK. 5. SMT. JANNATABI W/O. KUTUBUDDIN CHOUGADAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, DVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAMMADSHARIF S/O. ABBAS GALAGALI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: JAMAKANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE SHREE RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-1. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT PASSED BY COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADLD. M.A.C.T GOKAK IN MVC NO.07/2012 ON 05.10.2013 AND AWARD REASONABLE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V Act’ for short) by the legal representatives of the petitioner challenging the orders on IA Nos.1 and 2 passed in MVC No.7 of 2012 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (for short ‘the tribunal’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. The petitioner filed a claim petition claiming the compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original petitioner died, leaving behind his legal representatives. The legal representatives of the deceased petitioner filed applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 to condone the delay in filing the applications and to permit them to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. The said applications were opposed by the insurance company and prayed to dismiss the applications. 4. The Tribunal, without hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the IA Nos.1 and 2 and consequently dismissed the claim petition as abated. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 5. The legal representatives of the deceased petitioner aggrieved by the order on IA Nos.1 and 2 filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 7. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original petitioner submits that the petitioner had sustained the grievous injuries and produced the records to show that they have spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Though the petitioner died during the pendency of the claim petition, but the legal representatives are entitled for the compensation towards the medical expenses. The tribunal could have awarded the compensation towards the medical expenses, on the contrary, rejected IA Nos.1 and 2. Hence, he submits that the legal representatives are entitled towards the medical expenses. The tribunal has rejected IA Nos.1 and 2 and held that the legal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 representatives cannot prosecute the petition. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the original petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased petitioner have not produced any record to show that there was a nexus between the injuries and the death. The legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are not entitle to the compensation and the tribunal has rightly rejected the applications. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay and not permitting the legal representatives to come on record?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 11. There is no dispute that the deceased petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. During his lifetime, he filed a claim petition under section 166 of the M.V Act, seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. During the pendency of the claim petition, the petitioner died leaving behind his legal representatives. The legal representatives filed an application for condonation of delay in filing LR application and also seeking permission to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. 12. The Insurance company did not file a statement of objections but verbally opposed the applications. 13. The tribunal has not considered the fact that the legal representatives are entitle for the loss of estate including the expenditure on medicine, treatment, diet, attendant, doctors fee etc. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 14. The M.V.Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Section 166(1) (a) of the Act provides for a statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injuries and under clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. The property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. If the legal representatives can pursue the claim in the case of death, I see no reason why the legal representatives cannot pursue the claim for the loss of property akin to estate of the injured, if he is deceased subsequently for the reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Sub 1(c) of Section 166. Such a claim would be completely distinct from personal injuries to the claimant, and which may not be the cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly abate with the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 death of the injured. What would the loss of estate mean and what items would be covered by it are issues which has to engage the attention. The insurance company has a statutory obligation to pay the compensation in the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim cases. This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only for the personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries. 15. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. KAHLON reported in 2021 ACJ 2576. The tribunal failed to consider the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and order passed by the tribunal is contrary to the proposition laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KAHLON (referred to supra). In view of the above - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 discussions, orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be set aside. 16. Hence, I answer the point for consideration accordingly in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, i.e., answered in the negative. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii. Orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 passed in MVC No.7 of 2012 dated 05.10.2013 is set aside. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 are allowed. iii. Abetment is set aside. Delay in filing LR application is condoned. Accordingly, legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are permitted to come on record. iv. Accordingly, the claim petition in MVC No.7 of 2012 is restored to its original file. v. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.10.2025 without awaiting the service of any further notice. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12993 MFA No. 101751 of 2015 vi. This court has not made any adjudication on the merits in issue. vii. All the contention of the parties are kept open. viii. The office is directed to return the records produced along with the memo, after retaining the photocopy of the same. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25