- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101816 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETA, W/O. CHANNABASAPPA HANAGANDI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. KUMARI BHAVANI, D/O. CHANNABASAPPA HANAGANDI, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. KUMARI SHIVANI, D/O. CHANNABASAPPA HANAGANDI, AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: NIL, APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY M/G NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 SMT. GEETA. 4. SMT. BANGAREVVA, W/O. SHEKHAR HANAGANDI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 ALL ARE R/O. HUNNUR FORM HOUSE, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. UMESH, S/O. SHRISHAIL MALLANNAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF CAR, R/O. HUNNUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IIND FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALYA CHENNAI-600002. 3. SHRISHAILAPPA, S/O. ANNAPPA MALLANNAVAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. HUNNUR(GARDEN LAND), TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. SAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;) (NOTICE TO R1 STANDS ABATED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.421/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI, JAMKHANDI, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT & ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The claimants are in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Jamkhandi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) under the judgment and award, dated 23.02.2018, passed in M.V.C. No.421/2015, and praying for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The claimants – wife, children and mother of the deceased Channabasappa Hanagandi - filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) claiming compensation for the accidental death of Channabasappa Hanagandi, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 02.12.2013 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/L-265 and a car bearing registration No.KA-48/M-4640. They stated that the deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of the accident, and he was working as a driver of a tractor and doing agricultural work thereby earning - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and, in addition, batta of Rs.100/- per day. The claimants also stated that the deceased was contributing his entire income towards maintenance of the family. 3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-insurance Company appeared and filed its statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. It also stated that the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 4. The claimant No.1, in order to prove their case, examined herself as P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2. The claimants produced 18 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18. Respondent No.2-insurance company examined one of its Officers as R.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R.1 to R.2. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the material on record awarded total global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- saddling the liability on the respondent-insurance company. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 5. Heard Sri. Santosh B.Rawoot, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri. S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insuance company. Perused the appeal papers including the trial court records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and submits that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘loss of dependency’. He submits that the accident had taken place on 02.12.2013 and due to the accidental injuries, the deceased died on 15.07.2014. It is submitted that the injuries suffered by the deceased was the reason for his death. He submits that the deceased had suffered fracture of femur and metatarsal bone. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, submits that, the doctor has deposed that on the date of the accident itself surgery was performed and a rod was inserted to the femur bone. It is submitted that the deceased was inpatient for more than 30 days. Further, it is stated that the medical bills itself was to the tune of Rs.87,542/- and the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 transportation, attendant charges, food, diet and nourishment. Learned counsel submits that during the period when the deceased was inpatient, the deceased had undergone operation/surgery, and that since the death of the deceased was due to accidental injuries, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased and ought to have granted compensation on the head of ‘loss of dependency’, and that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not awarding any compensation on the head of ‘loss of dependency’. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for allowing the appeal and enhancing the compensation. 7. Per contra, Sri. S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-insurance company would submit that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased and his death which is more than seven months subsequent to the date of the accident. He submits that the accident had taken place on 02.12.2013 whereas the death has occurred on 15.07.2014. It is submitted that the claimants have failed to establish the nexus between the injury sustained by the deceased in the road traffic accident and his death. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly refused to grant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 any compensation on the head of ‘loss of dependency. Learned counsel would submit that there is no material whatsoever to establish the nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of the deceased. It is submitted that the Tribunal taking note of the fact the expenditure incurred towards medicine, and the medical bills and other incidental expenses, has rightly awarded global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, and submits that the claimants would not be entitled for enhancement of compensation. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the records of Tribunal, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are, i) Whether the appellants/claimants would be entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency? ii) Whether the appellants/claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 9. The answers to the above points would be in the negative and affirmative for the following reasons: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 (a) The occurrence of the accident that took place on 02.12.2013 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/L-265 and a car bearing registration No.KA- 48/M-4640, and the injuries sustained by Sri. Channabasappa Hanagandi is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (b) The accident in question, as stated above, had taken place on 02.12.2013 and the death of Channabasappa Hanagandi had taken place on 15.07.2014 after more than seven months from the date of the accident. The injuries sustained by the deceased were fracture of femur and of metatarsal bones. The appellants/claimants have failed to establish that the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident were the root cause for the death. There is no nexus between the accidental injuries of fracture and the death. The claimants have failed to place on record the Post- mortem Report. In the absence of Post-mortem Report, the cause of death is not known. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 (c) P.W.2, the doctor who treated the deceased as on the date of the accident, is examined on behalf of the claimants and he specifically states that after surgery, the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 31.12.2013. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has made it clear that after discharge the deceased had not come to him for follow-up treatment. He also states that it is not known to him with regard to the death of the deceased Channabasappa Hanagandi. P.W.2, in his cross-examination, has also stated that he is not in a position to say anything as to whether the accidental injuries are the cause of death of the deceased. When the claimants/appellants have failed to establish the nexus between the accidental injuries and the death, which has taken place more than seven months after the date of the accident, it cannot be said that the death is due to the accidental injuries. Hence, the claimants/appellants would not be entitled to any compensation under the head “loss of dependency”. (d) The accident as stated above has taken place on 02.12.2013 and the deceased was discharged on - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 31.12.2013 from the hospital after surgery. Admittedly, the deceased was inpatient for nearly 30 days. The hospital bills, which are produced, are to the tune of Rs.87,542/-. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head of conveyance, attendant’s charges, food diet and nourishment. The claimants would be entitled for compensation under the above heads. Therefore, taking note of the above, we deem it appropriate to enhance the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its actual realization. 10. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER a) The above appeal is allowed in part. b) The judgment and award, dated 23.02.2018, passed in MVC No.421/2015 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI at Jamkhandi, is hereby modified. The appellants/claimants, are entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal with - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4697-DB MFA No. 101816 of 2018 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its actual realization. c) The order of Tribunal with regard to apportionment and deposit of the compensation remains unaltered. d) Respondent No.2–Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) Draw modified award accordingly. Records of the Tribunal be transmitted to Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS,CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47