- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25276 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DO.2, KHENY BUILDING, NO.3 I FLOOR I CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, LTD. P.B. ROAD, BENGALURU, REP BY: THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KESHWAPUR ROAD, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. CHANABASSAVVA W/O SHANTAPPA KONCHIGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG. 2. K. TIPPESWAMY S/O K. ERANNA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HALAKUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07-09-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, GADAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,91,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.04 11:39:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded vide judgement and award dated 07.09.2012 in MVC No. 119 of 2008 passed by the learned Fast Track Court and Additional MACT, Gadag. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 17.02.2008, at about 8 30 PM, the son of the petitioner i.e., Mahantesh and one Girish were travelling in an Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg. No. KA- 34/7743 and at that time the driver of auto drove the same negligently and rashly and turtled it down. As a result of which, the son of the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Girish sustained a grievous injuries. It is contended that the deceased Mahantesh was aged 22 years old and used to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 earn Rs. 10000 per month as a lorry driver. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. Despite service of a notice, the owner of the offending vehicle remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. It is contended that the driver of the auto Rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective Driving License as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The other person i.e., Girish , accompanied by the son of the petitioner filed a claim petition in MVC No.96/2008, seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 the parties, framed the separate issues. A common evidence was recorded. 7. The petitioner was examined as PW1, an advocate (translator)was examined as PW 2, two other witnesses were examined as PW-3 and 4, and the documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P48. Conversely, the Insurance Company did not lead any oral evidence, however marked the Insurance policy with consent, as Ex.D1. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition is part vide judgment dated 07.09.2012 and awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the realisation of the amount. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of the award. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance company. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. She submits that the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4000/- when no documents are placed on record regarding the income of the deceased. She submits that no evidence is produced to show that the deceased was working as a driver and in the absence of the evidence, the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 12. A notice was served to respondent No 1 herein, despite the service of notice, she remained unrepresented - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 before this court. A notice to Respondent No. 2 herein, is dispensed with. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance company. 14. The point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation. Regarding the quantum of compensation 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident; the petitioner’s son sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner, to prove that the accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto Rickshaw produced documents. The petitioner produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P47 which is filed against the driver of the said auto Rickshaw. Ex.P5 is a Post mortem report which discloses that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 injuries sustained. The Tribunal was justified in answering Issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that the accident was caused due to the driving by the driver of the offending auto Rickshaw. 16. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the global compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- to the petitioner taking into consideration the age of the deceased as per the post mortem report. 17. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- which is just and proper, and has applied the multiplier ‘18’ applicable to the age group of 22 years, as per the chart issued by the Karnataka legal services authority and has, however, awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- to the petitioner. The global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and does not call for any interference by this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10607 MFA No. 25276 of 2012 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. iii) Amount in deposit, if any, and the trial court records be sent back to the Tribunal, forthwith. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5