- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11900-DB MFA No. 100105 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100105 OF 2025 (MV) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. R/BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O ANAND MALLAPURI, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O HEBBAL, TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591221. 2. KUMAR SHREYANSH S/O ANAND MALLAPURI, AGE 11 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SINCE MINOR BY M/G NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 3. KUMARI SHARAVANI D/O ANAND MALLAPURI, AGE 09 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SINCE MINOR BY M/G NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 4. SMT. RUKKMAVVA W/O NEMANNA MALLAPURI, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O HEBBAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591221. 5. SHRI. CHOKHA RAM S/O GOVERDHAN RAM CHOUDHARY, AGE MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O BAITU KALANDA JHANK, BALADU, BARMER, RAJASTHAN-344 035. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS R/BY R1) Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11900-DB MFA No. 100105 of 2025 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2024 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO. 1657/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.31,63,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION & ETC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 27.08.2024 passed in M.V.C. No. 1657/2022 by the learned VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge and AMACT, Belagavi (for short, the ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the deceased Anand was working as Helper in an Ambulance, and on 26.07.2022 he met with an accident. When he was placing safety cones on the road the driver of the bus bearing Reg. No. AR-06-A-9838 dashed him which resulted in sustaining grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident, was earning - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11900-DB MFA No. 100105 of 2025 Rs.20,000/- per month from the avocation of Helper in the Ambulance and the claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased and they filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs. 3. Respondent No.1 was placed exparte. Appellant herein who was the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal filed objections denying the age, avocation and income. It is contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was not having a valid permit on the date of accident and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has recorded detailed finding that the permit was valid on the date of accident and awarded total compensation of Rs.31,63,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. Being aggrieved, the insurer is in appeal. 4. Sri Rajashekar S. Arani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in appreciating the evidence on record. It is submitted that the bus involved in the accident which was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company was not having a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11900-DB MFA No. 100105 of 2025 valid permit to ply in the State of Karnataka as the bus is from the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- as the claimant No.1 in the cross examination has clearly admitted that deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month from his avocation. When a clear admission was made in evidence, the question of considering the higher income does not arise. 5. Sri Santhosh S. Hattikatagi, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 herein supported the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for the parties and meticulously perused the materials placed on record. 7. The point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11900-DB MFA No. 100105 of 2025 8. Parties to the proceedings do not dispute that Anand, the deceased, sustaining grievous injuries in the road accident and died on 26.07.2022. It is also not in dispute that the accident is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Reg. No. AR-06-A-9838 by its driver. The claim petition and the evidence of PW1 indicate that deceased was working as Helper in the Ambulance and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 9. PW1 in her cross examination has admitted that deceased used to receive Rs.7,000/- from his avocation. If the evidence of PW1, i.e. her cross examination, is read in entirety, it can be safely inferred that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month from his avocation and he used to receive additional sum by way of cash on different occasions. There is no clear evidence with regard to the actual amount received by the deceased. Considering the same, the Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- per month. We do not find any error in the same. 10. Further, insofar as the contention with regard to the permit of the offending vehicle is concerned, the Tribunal at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11900-DB MFA No. 100105 of 2025 paragraph No. 39 has recorded a clear finding that the copy of the permit dated 31.05.2024 produced before the Tribunal and it clearly indicates that the vehicle involved in the accident was having valid permit. We have also perused the permit and we concur with the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the permit. Hence, on both grounds we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the appellant. 11. For the aforementioned reasons we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Pending IA/s also stand disposed off. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26