- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A NO.102615 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W. M.F.A. NO. 101652 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA NO. 102615/2015 BETWEEN SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA, AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. ...APPELLANT (BY SHRI J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. LINGARAJ S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA ABBIGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. 2. DIVISION MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE, HUBLI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT FIRST FLOOR, KALABURGI SQARE, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 3. MAHESH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA, AGE: 37 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. 4. MANJUNATH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA, AGE: 37 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. 5. VISHWANATH SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. 6. TRIMOORTHI S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA, AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. 7. MALLIKARJUN SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA, AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. 8. SUDARSHAN S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIGA, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O. KUKANOOR, TALUK: YELABURGA, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3, R4, R5, R7 & R8 SERVED; NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2015, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., YELABURGA IN M.V.C. NO.38/2012, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY GRANTING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT-CLAIMANT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO. 101652/2020 BETWEEN LINGARAJ S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA ABBIGERI, AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: NIL, OWNER AND DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KA-26/8779, AT POST: KUKANOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, (NOW NEW KUKANOOR TALUKA), DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583232. ...APPELLANT (BY SHRI RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. LAXMIBAI W/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK. 2. MAHESH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG, AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK. 3. MANJUNATH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK. 4. VISHVANATH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK. 5. TRIMURTHI S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK. 6. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK. 7. SUDHRSAHN S/O. SHANMUKAPPA AKKASALIG, AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOME WORK, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KUKANOOR, TALUKA: YELBURGA (NOW NEW KUKANOOR TQ) DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583232. 8. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CHORAMANDAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, HUBBALLI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KALBURGI SQURE, DESPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 583424. RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R5; SHRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R8; NOTICE TO R3, R4, R6 & R7 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T, YELBURGA IN M.V.C. NO.38/2012 PASSED ON 27/07/2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) MFA No.101652/2020 filed by the owner and MFA No.102615/2015 filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 27.07.2015 passed in MVC No.38/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Yelburga (‘Tribunal’, for short). 2. Heard Sri Rajashekhar B.Halli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - owner of the vehicle submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in saddling liability on the owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not having driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle and the vehicle involved is the transport vehicle. The issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that there is a violation of permit as the auto rickshaw was plying beyond the permitted area. It is also 1 2017 SAR (Civil) 1008 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 submitted that the auto rickshaw involved in the accident had a valid permit on the date of accident and if it is plied beyond the area, it is not amounting to violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Abdul Rouf v. Megharaj Mehdole and others2, the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Manjunatta and others3, the Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.Pushpa and others4. He seeks to allow the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle by shifting the liability on the Insurance Company. 3. Sri Ravindra R.Mane, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that there is violation of the permit condition. Hence, there should be a direction to the Insurance Company to pay and recover. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and others v. 2 MFA No.201648/2015 and connected appeal DD 26.11.2020 3 MFA No.102355/2023 and connected appeals DD 27.08.2024 4 MFA No.101103/2017 DD 01.02.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others5, Rani and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors6 and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. The Shiv Co-op Transport Society Ltd. And Ors7. It is submitted that the contention with regard to the valid driving licence is not seriously disputed by the Insurance Company. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal filed by the owner by directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount with liberty to recover the said amount. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and fair, does not call for any enhancement. 4. Sri J.S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income and awarded meager compensation under the head of loss of dependency and also on conventional heads. He seeks to allow the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Meticulously perused the 5 2018 ACJ 1768 6 2018 (8) SCC 492 7 Manu / SCOR 64504/2024 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 material on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is: “Whether the impugned judgment and award calls for any interference?” 7. The wife and children of the deceased Shanmukhappa filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. They have adduced the evidence of claimant No.1 as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P17. The respondent examined RW1 to RW3 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R7. The Tribunal considering the material on record allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of ₹2,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum by directing the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. 8. The undisputed facts are that on 17.06.2012, the husband of claimant No.1 and father of the other claimants met with a road accident, sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was retired KPTCL - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 employee and was aged about 64 years and he was drawing ₹16,583/- as a monthly maintenance and the claimants are the dependents. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the driver of the auto rickshaw which was involved in the accident was not having driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident is a non- transport vehicle and the driver was having a licence to drive transport vehicle. However, the said issue is no more res- integra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred supra answered the said issue and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also does not dispute the same. The non-transport licence holder did not require separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kgs. 9. The Tribunal taking note of the permit placed on record recorded the finding that the auto rickshaw was plying beyond the permit area. The records indicate that the auto rickshaw was having a valid permit to ply within the jurisdiction of Halligudi Gram Panchayat limits and the accident in question has taken place between Kuknoor to Banapur village on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 17.06.2012. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Rouf referred supra considering the earlier judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that there is difference between no permit and having a valid permit, but the vehicle was taken beyond the permit limit and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The relevant paragraphs are extracted herein below for easy reference. “7. The insurance company has not seriously disputed the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the same and also the liability to satisfy the award amount. However, grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the direction of the learned Tribunal to satisfy the award amount entirely by the insurance company without giving a further direction to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in the factual background that the accident has taken place within the State of Andhra Pradesh where the offending vehicle had no permit to ply is clearly unjustified. The fact that the offending vehicle was having valid permit to ply in the State of Maharashtra is not in dispute. Further it was brought to our notice that Ex.R7 (policy of Insurance) does not contain any term regarding the aspect of permit. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 observation of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in MFA No.30752/2011 C/W. MFA No.30753/2011 and MFA No.30388/2012 (MV) dated 11.07.2018 at para-10 reads as follows: " There is no dispute about the autorickshaw having insurance coverage as on the date of accident; according to the insurance company, since six passengers travelled in it and that the accident occurred at a place beyond the area permitted for plying and therefore its liability to indemnify the owner gets exonerated. It is not possible to accept this argument. It is not the case that there was no permit at all for the autorickshaw. It had a valid permit, but it was taken beyond the permitted limit. There is some difference between the two. If there is no permit at all, or if a transport vehicle is used for a purpose not allowed by the permit as envisaged in S.149 (2) (a) (i) (c), the insurance company need not indemnify the liability of the insured for violation of policy condition. But where a vehicle is taken beyond the limits, it cannot be said that there is violation of policy condition, it is contravention of permit condition which is punishable according to S.192A of the Motor Vehicles Act." 8. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that since the offending vehicle did not have any - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 permit to ply in the State of Andhra Pradesh, insurance company has no liability to satisfy the award amount cannot be accepted and accordingly the contention put forth in this behalf is rejected.” 10. Similarly this Court in the case of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited referred supra following the earlier decision of this Court has taken the similar view and also in the case of Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited referred supra. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh referred supra, in the case of Rani and others referred supra and the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited referred supra held that there cannot be any liability on the Insurance Company, if the vehicle did not have the permit. In the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that if the vehicle at the time of accident did not have permit is a fundamental statutory infraction and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation and recover from the owner of the vehicle. In the case on hand, admittedly there was a permit to the vehicle in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 question and the vehicle was plied beyond the permitted area. Hence the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra are not applicable to the case on hand. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases referred supra held that if the vehicle involved in the accident had a valid permit and plied beyond the permitted area, the Insurance Company is liable. Considering the same, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error in saddling liability on the owner of the vehicle. We accordingly modify the impugned judgment and award by directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation by fixing liability on it. 11. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹5,000/- by not considering the actual family pension received by the dependents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another8 held that family pension, provident fund, cash balance, shares, fixed deposits etc., cannot be termed as a pecuniary advantage. Similar view 8 (1999) 1 SCC 90 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 is also taken in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Birendra and others9 considering the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal erred in deducting the family pension and arriving the income of the deceased. 12. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the deceased was aged about 64 years at the time of accident and he was drawing monthly pension of ₹16,583/- and the claimants are dependents. Considering the aforesaid fact, we recalculate the compensation as under: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in ₹) 1 Loss of dependency Rs.16,583/- (income of the deceased) x 4/5 x 12 x 5) 7,95,984/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 7) 2,80,000/- 3 Conventional heads (loss of estate and funeral expenses and transportation of dead body) 30,000/- Total 11,05,984/- 9 (2020) 11 SCC 356 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 13. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, we pass the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.101652/2020 and MFA No.102615/2015 are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled total compensation of ₹11,05,984/- (Rupees eleven lakh five thousand nine hundred and eighty-four only) as against ₹2,50,000/-. (iii) The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the payment is made. (iv) The Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount along with interest to the claimants within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9431-DB MFA No. 102615 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101652 of 2020 (vi) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted back along with records to the Tribunal, forthwith. (vii) Draw modified award accordingly. *(viii) Registry shall refund the statutory amount deposited to the appellant in MFA.No.101652/2020 (i.e. owner of the vehicle) with proper identification, as now the liability is shifted to the Insurance Company. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 *Corrected vide Court order dated 18.08.2025 Sd/- (SSDYJ) JUDGE Sd/- (VAPJ) JUDGE