- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200555 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE GENERAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., GUNJ CIRCLE, RAICHUR. NOW REPRESENTED BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S S ASPALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHWINI @ RENUKA W/O. EASHWAR SINGH TAKUR, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O.H.NO. 56, CHANDRABANDA ROAD, ASHRAYA COLONY, RAICHUR. TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. V.N. RAO CIVIL CONTRACTOR, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 S/O. V. RAJESHWAR RAO, AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF LORRY TANKER, BEARING REGN. NO.TS-25/T-0828, H.NO.9-27, DUBBAPALLY, MULUGU GHANPUR, CHELPUR, JAYASHANKAR, BHUPALPALLY, WARANGAL, TELANGANA-506001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R MATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO. 66/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT RAICHUR, DATED 08.08.2023 b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2023 IN MVC NO. 66/2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT RAICHUR, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 08.08.2023 in MVC No. 66/2021, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and M.A.C.T. at Raichur, on quantum, on the ground that, since the mother remarried after the death of the deceased’s father, she is not entitled to be considered as a legal representative or a dependant on her son, who was admittedly residing far away in Andhra Pradesh, while the mother herself resides in Raichur. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Kokonda Kaushik son of late Satyanarayana are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation on the premise that the mother of the deceased married again and living with her husband and she is not a dependent on the deceased. 3. Heard Sri S. S. Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 though served, remained absent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 4. Sri S. S. Aspalli, learned counsel with all vehemence submits that the deceased was residing in Andhra Pradesh, with the relatives, whereas the mother subsequently to the death of father of the deceased Sri Satyanarayana, married another person and residing along with the husband at Raichur. There are no documents produced in evidence to show that the deceased was living along with the mother and she is depending on the earnings of the deceased. In these circumstances, the mother of the deceased cannot be considered as a dependent to award compensation, she may be entitled to the savings under the head loss of estate, which could be 10% of the income of the deceased. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.21,54,600/-, under the head of loss of dependency required to be re- considered and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal, by reducing the compensation. 5. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Basavaraj R. Math would vehemently submitted that, mere marrying another person may not change the position or status of the mother to the deceased. The mother even in the presence of father of the deceased be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 considered as a dependent as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1, the status as mother of the deceased would not change merely on second marriage. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the entire appeal papers, so also the Trial Court Record, the only point that would arise for our consideration is Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation under the head loss of dependency and other conventional heads? 7. Our answer to the above point for consideration is in ‘affirmative’ for the following: 1 2009 ACJ 1298 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 REASONS 8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company is the mother married another person subsequent to the death of the father of the deceased and residing along with her husband at Raichur, whereas, the son is pursuing his studies in Andhra Pradesh. The undisputed fact is that the deceased is the son of claimant – appellant. Even in the presence of the father of the deceased, the status of mother would remain as it is, as being a dependant, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that the mother would be the only person dependent on the income of the bachelor. The second marriage would not change the status of mother. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is very hard for us to countenance and accordingly, rejected. Looking into the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, awarded appropriate compensation which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, we proceed to hold that the Tribunal has awarded appropriate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 compensation, which does not call any interference at the hands of this Court, in the absence of any infirmities. 9. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. ii) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, for disbursement. iii) The appellant – Insurance Company shall deposit balance amount within six weeks with accrued interest awarded by the Tribunal within six weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the concerned Tribunal. iv) So far as order of release and deposit is concerned, the same is as per the order passed by the Tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5069-DB MFA No. 200555 of 2024 v) The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Record within two weeks from the date of release of the judgment of this Court, without causing any further delay, enabling the Insurance Company to deposit and the claimants to seek for release of the amount. vi) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32/CT:JLR