- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100052 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGER, DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, BRANCH OFFICE, TONTADARYA VIDYA PEETH BUILDING, ROTARY CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD, GADAG, REPRESEBTED BY ITS MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ANKOLA ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. KALABHAVAN, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD. … APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARNAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA GADAG @ GADAGIN, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S., SRI. MANJUNATH S/O CHANNABASAPPA GADAG @ GADAGIN, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREHANDIGOL, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG. 2. SRI. MOHAN S/O CHANNABASAPPA GADAG @ GADAGIN, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREHANDIGOL, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG. 3. GURUNATH S/O SHIVAPPA KALAKANNAVAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HULKOTI, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016 4. BASALINGAPPA S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: VAKKALGERI ONI, NEAR RACHOTESHWAR TEMPLE, GADAG. 5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MULAGUND ROAD, GADAG. 6. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, GADAG. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI F.R.GALAGANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R5 AND R6 – NOTICE SERVED; APPEAL AGAINST R4 IS DISMISSED AS ON 01.04.2019.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2015, PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.174/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADAG AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 23.09.2015, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in MVC No.174/2012, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded as it is on higher side. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. It is submission of learned counsel for appellant that the claimants are major sons, hence they are not dependants on the deceased who was aged 58 years old at the time of accident. Hence, awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency would not arise. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for loss to estate only. Considering the claimants are major sons and deceased was 58 years old, though the claimants are not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency, but considering that the accident occurred on 21.05.2012, and notional income was Rs.6,500/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, and if half of the amount is deducted for the purpose of quantification of compensation under the head loss to estate, then the amount would be coming around four lakh rupees. Therefore, the quantum of compensation determined b the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100052 of 2016 tribunal is found to be just and proper, which needs no interference. 4. The another ground urged is that in the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle there is no endorsement of ‘transport’. The vehicle is LMV (transport) and the driver was holding driving licence LMV (non transport) and this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663. 5. Therefore, on both these counts the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 6. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36