- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3466 MFA No. 22393 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22393 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: THE CHIEF MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TOWERS 46, WHITES ROAD, ROYAPOTTAN, CHENNAI-600014. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYA W/O. SURESH HULEKAL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DAMANBAIL, CHIPIGI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR. 2. PRAKASH S/O. SURESH HULEKAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: DAMANBAIL, CHIPIGI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR. 3. PRANAM S/O. SURESH HULEKAL, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: DAMANBAIL, CHIPIGI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3466 MFA No. 22393 of 2012 4. PRASHANT S/O. SURESH HULEKAL AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: DAMANBAIL, CHIPIGI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR. 5. RESHMA D/O. SURESH HULEKAL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: DAMANBAIL, CHIPIGI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR. 6. SRI DINESH VAIKUNT NILEKENI, AGE: MAJOR, OC: NOT GIVEN, R/O: KUMTA ROAD, NILEKANI, SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2012 IN MVC.NO.105/2009 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE FAST TRACK COURT, SIRSI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3466 MFA No. 22393 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 15.03.2012, passed in MVC No.105/2009, by the Court of Fast Track Court, Sirsi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) 2. It is the case of claimants that the Suresh Rama Hulekal (for short, ‘deceased’) was a snake catcher by profession. On 30.04.2009, at 5.45 hours, after completion of his duty, he was going to Bhairumbe to his hotel on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/E-9795. At that time, the Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-15/M-1532 dashed him. Due to which, he sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,31,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by fastening the liability on appellant/Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that there is no mentioning of Maruti Omni - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3466 MFA No. 22393 of 2012 car number in the complaint and there is no evidence that this vehicle is involved in the accident. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Further submitted that claimants No.2 to 5 are majors, hence they are not dependent on the deceased. Hence, 50% of income ought to have deducted, but 1/3rd of the income deducted, which is not correct. Therefore, on these two counts prays to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. The accident occurred on 30.04.2009 at 5.30 p.m. Admittedly, there is no mentioning of number of offending vehicle in the complaint and FIR. But the fact proved that deceased met with an accident, which is appeared in the news paper-Ex.P7 dated 01.05.2009. When the appellant/Insurance Company is disputing the involvement of Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-15/M-1532, but Ex.R17-Notice copy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company itself proved the fact that the appellant had admitted involvement of Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-15/M-1532. By this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3466 MFA No. 22393 of 2012 Ex.R17-Notice copy, the appellant/Insurance Company has called the owner and driver of Maruti Omni car to produce driving licence, registration certificate of vehicle and other documents. By virtue of Ex.R17-Notice copy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company, the Insurance Company itself admitted the involvement of Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-15/M-1532. But it was the contention in the said letter/notice copy that driver did not have driving licence. Therefore, Ex.R17 proved that the Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-15/M-1532 has dashed the deceased and caused accident. 7. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company produced Ex.R4 to Ex.R14- certified copies of depositions in C.C.No.16/09, in which the evidence of police inspector proved the fact of involvement of Maruti Omni car. The police have received an anonymous letter that the Maruti Omni car has caused the accident. Therefore, with detailed investigation, it is brought to the knowledge of police inspector regarding Maruti Omni car has caused the accident. Therefore, charge sheet is laid down against the driver of the Maruti Omni car. Hence, the Tribunal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3466 MFA No. 22393 of 2012 is correct in appreciating the evidence on record and has rightly came to the conclusion that Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-15/M-1532 has caused the accident and in the said accident the deceased died. 8. Further, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that claimants No.2 to 5 are major children of deceased and were not dependent on deceased. But claimants No.2 to 5 are unemployed children, therefore, they were depending on the income of the deceased. Just because the children are major, that too they were ranging between the age of 22 to 28 years, alleging that they were not depending on the income of deceased is not correct. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. But it ought to have been deducted 1/4th instead of 1/3rd, since there are five legal heirs. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in making deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses. The claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Hence question of enhancement of compensation would not arise. Therefore, whatever the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3466 MFA No. 22393 of 2012 correct and as such there is no need of interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost. 9. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/-. b) The judgment and award dated 15.03.2012, passed in MVC No.105/2009, by the Court of Fast Track Court, Sirsi, is confirmed with cost. c) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41