- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25505 OF 2012 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. TAYAWWA MALLAPPA BARAKI, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SHEKHAPPA S/O MALLAPPA BARKI, AGE: 34 YEARS, 2. NAGADEVI W/O RAVI WALIKAR AGE: 30 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: KALADAGI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV) AND: 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 2. SRI. SARWANKHAN HASANKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICEL R/AT. AMBAD ROAD, JALNA, DIST. JALNA, STATE. MAHARASTRA. 3. SRI. M. R PALANIAPPAN, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE R/AT. SHIVABASAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI. 4. THE MANAGER, THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R MANE, ADV FOR R1, SRI. G.N RAICHUR, ADV FOR R4, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:13:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.667/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-III, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased original Claimant—Tayawwa challenging the judgment and award dated 14.09.2012 passed in MVC No.667 of 2008 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Bagalkot (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on thier rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. One Tayawwa met with an accident on 06.01.2003 while travelling in a private bus bearing Registration - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 No.KA-22/B-4899 which collided with a lorry bearing Registration No.MH-28/B-7338 and sustained a grievous injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both vehicles. Hence, she filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 remained exparte before the Tribunal. 6. The said petition was opposed by respondent No.2— insurer of the lorry bearing Registration No.MH-28/B- 7338 by filing a statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the liability of this Respondent is subject to the policy conditions and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against R2. 7. Respondent No.4—the insurer of the bus bearing Registration No.KA-22/B-4899 filed a statement of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the bus did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.4. 8. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant died, leaving behind her legal heirs. The legal heirs were brought on record. 9. To prove the claim petition averments, claimant No.1(b) was examined as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2, and marked 31 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-31. 10. The Respondents have not led any evidence and no documentary evidence were placed on record. 11. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 14.09.2012 and the claimants were awarded a compensation of ₹9,700/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, and directed respondent Nos.2 and 4, being the insurers of both offending vehicles, liable to pay the award amount to an extent of 50% each to the claimants with accrued interest. 12. The claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking an enhancement. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original claimant, learned counsel for M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd and learned counsel for M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the original claimant sustained a grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, and died due to the injuries sustained. He submits that, to prove the disability, claimants have examined the doctor. He submits that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the both the Insurance Companies submits that the legal representatives of the original claimant have not produced any record to show that there was any nexus between the injuries sustained and the death of the original claimant. Further, the legal representatives of the original claimant have not produced the postmortem report to establish that original claimant died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, and there was a nexus between the injuries and the resultant death. They submit that the claimants are only entitled to the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased original claimant. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation. Therefore, on these grounds, they pray to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 18. There is no dispute that the deceased original claimant met with an accident, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the both offending vehicles. A charge sheet was filed against the drivers of both vehicles, which is marked as Ex.P-29. The claimants produced Ex.P-29 to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the aforesaid offending vehicles. 19. The claimants examined the doctor as PW-2, a perusal of which, discloses that the doctor has not stated whether the deceased original claimant had suffered any permanent physical disability. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 20. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased original claimant, has awarded a compensation of ₹9,700/-. 21. It is pertinent to note that the accident occurred on 06.01.2008. The deceased original claimant was admitted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli, and was discharged on 12.01.2008. The wound certificate at Ex.P-3 discloses that injury No.1 viz., abrasion on the left side of the face is grievous in nature, and the other injuries are simple in nature. It is contended by the legal representatives of the original deceased claimant that, she died on 21.05.2009 due to the said injuries. 22. It is true that the original claimant died on 21.05.2009 during the pendency of the claim petition, and the legal representatives of the deceased were brought on the record. In the absence of establishing the nexus between the injuries suffered in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 accident and the death of the original claimant, they are not entitled to the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 23. However, the legal representatives are entitled only to the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased. 24. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, was justified in passing the impugned judgment and award, granting compensation of ₹9,700/-. 25. On reassessing the material on record, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award. 26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9814 MFA No. 25505 of 2012 (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3