- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH 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.201668 OF 2024 C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201217 OF 2024 IN MFA No.201668/2024: BETWEEN: 1. PRATAPRAO S/O BHIMARAO BHOSALE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. SHASHIKALA S/O PRATAPRAO BHOSALE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. KHUSHBU W/O VISHAL BHOSALE, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. HARSH S/O VISHAL BHOSALE, AGE: 05 YEARS, OCC: MINOR STUDENT, 5. SHRINATH S/O VISHAL BHOSALE, AGE: 03 YEARS, OCC: NIL, APPELLANT No.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS, U/G OF NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO. 3, ALL ARE R/O. MORE COLONY, JATH, DIST. SANGLI-416 416. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 AND: 1. DAS AGROTECH PVT. LTD., TASGAON, MANERAJURI ROAD, OPP. VASANT DADA MILK CENTRE, TASGAON, DIST. SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-415 411. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 07.03.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-XV VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.75/2022 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION. IN MFA No.201217/2024: BETWEEN: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, SANGAMA BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA, NOW REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 AND: 1. PRATAPRAO S/O BHIMARAO BHOSALE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. SHASHIKALA S/O PRATAPRAO BHOSALE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. KHUSHBU W/O VISHAL BHOSALE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. HARSHA S/O VISHAL BHOSALE, AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 5. SHRINATH S/O VISHAL BHOSALE, AGE: 02 YEARS, OCC: NIL, SINCE THE RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER/ RESPONDENT No.3, ALL ARE R/O. MORE COLONY, JATH, DIST. SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-415 411. 6. DAS AGROTECH PVT. LTD., TASGAON, MANERAJURI ROAD, OPP. VASANT DADA MILK CENTRE, TASGAON, DIST. SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-415 411. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGNAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; R4 AND R5 ARE MINORS U/G OF R3; R6-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC No.75/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT-XV, VIJAYAPURA, DATED 19.10.2023. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 AWARD DATED 19.10.2023 IN MVC No.75/2022 PASSED BY THE MACT-XV VIJAYAPURA, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These two appeals being MFA No.201668/2024 and MFA No.201217/2024 are by claimants/appellants and by the Insurance Company, calling in question judgment and award dated 19.10.2023 in MVC No.75/2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - XV, Vijaypura, on the ground of liability and quantum by the appellant - Insurance Company and on the ground of quantum by the appellants/claimants. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Vishal Son of prataprao Bhosale are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident has happened within the premises of the Milk factory, which does not come within the purview of Section 2(34) of MV Act, that it is not a public place and there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 is a delay in lodging the complaint, so also on the quantum. So far as the claimants/appellants are concerned, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and required to be enhanced. 3. Heard Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in MFA No.201668/2024 and Sri S. S. Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.201217/2024 and notice to other respondents in the appeal by the appellant – Insurance Company is served but unrepresented. So far as respondent No.1 in MFA No.201668/2024 is concerned, notice of this appeal is dispensed with vide order dated 07.03.2025. 4. Sri S. S. Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.201217/2024 with all vehemence submitted that the accident occurred within the premises of the factory which is not a public place as defined under Section 2(34) of MV Act. As such, the appeal filed under Section 166 of MV Act is not maintainable. That apart, there is a delay of 9 days in filing the complaint, which has not been explained properly by the claimants. So also, the compensation awarded - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 under the head - Loss of dependency, considering the salary certificate issued at Ex.P10 not substantiated by the examining author and PW3, who has been examined on behalf of the company is not an authorized person. The Tribunal, without considering the said aspect of the matter, taken the income as per the salary certificate at the rate of Rs.19,500/- stated in Ex.P10 and added 40% towards the said income i.e., Rs.19,500/- and awarded exorbitant compensation under the head - loss of dependency, which requires re-consideration. So also, under the loss of consortium, is more than the permissible one as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and requires re-consideration. 5. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimants in MFA No.201668/2024 with all vehemence submitted that the accident had occurred on 15.08.2021. In the said accident, the claimants lost their son and under great grief and distressed as such, there is delay in lodging the complaint which has been explained. It is trite that mere delay in lodging the complaint does not give the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 Insurance Company right, when there is an explanation for the delay, to seek exoneration from its liability to pay compensation on hyper-technical grounds. So far as the application under Section 2(34) is concerned, it is on hyper technical ground. As per the spot sketch and Mahazar, the accident has occurred outside the premise which was against the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company relying on definition of Section 2(34) of MV Act. The Eyewitness who has been examined, was clearly stated that the vehicle which was parked on the road without chocking the wheels and hand break, moved on its own and dashed to the deceased, who was standing near a tea stall which is outside the factory premise. In these circumstances, Section 2(34) is not applicable. Even if it is made applicable, it is a public place stated under the Act. In the case on hand, the spot was outside the place of factory premises and it is not a private place but it is a public place coming within the purview of Section 2(34) of MV Act. In these circumstances, both the grounds raised, liable to be rejected. 6. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation which requires - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 reconsideration on the materials produced before it. The compensation awarded under the head of the Funeral Expenses and loss of Estate are on the lower side, so also, the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation under the head - 10% escalation in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI1. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimant, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant - Insurance Company. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused both the appeal papers so also the certified copy of the Trial Court Record made available by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company, the points that would arise for our consideration are: i) Whether the appellant – Insurance Company has made out a case that the accident has not occurred in the public place as per Section 2(34), the application is not itself is not 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 maintainable under Section 2(34) of MV Act? ii) whether the appellant Insurance company has made out a case that the delay in filling compliance by 9 days creates suspicious as same was not properly explained. iii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, if not, any interference is required at the hands of this Court? Our answer to the above points are as under: Point No. (i) and (ii) – are in Negative. Point No.(iii) – partly in affirmative, for the following: REASONS 8. Pont Nos. (i) and (ii). Both are taken together to avoid repetition of facts. The main contention of the appellant - Insurance Company is that, there is a delay of 9 days in lodging - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 the complaint. A perusal of the complaint, clearly shows that there is a proper explanation given in the complaint, wherein it is stated that in an unfortunate incident, the claimants have lost their beloved son. They have informed the police and the police after conducting all the necessary procedures, handed over the body and after attending all the funeral and other ceremonies, they lodged the complaint before the police. The explanations stated under the complaint are acceptable. It is the trite law that, mere delay in lodging the complaint, in the presence of proper explanation would not create a right in favor of Insurance company to seek exoneration from paying the compensation. In these circumstances, the ground of delay in lodging complaint will not come to the aid of the appellant – Insurance Company. So far as the application under Section 2(34) of the Act is concerned, the accident has occurred outside the premises of the factory. Even according to PW2, eye witness, though he has stated that it is not on the public road, but the word used is ‘public place’, which means a road, street, a way or other place, whether thoroughfare or not, through which the public has a right of access and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set on by a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 stage carriers. As per the spot Panchanama, the spot wherein the accident has taken place, is outside the factory premises which is clear. The statements made in the panchanama clearly shows that the factory was on the hind side of the Koba. The deceased was standing near the Koba, i.e., small tea shop, the tempo moved on its own, which was parked outside the factory without hand break or chocking the wheels. In these circumstances, the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is not a public way as defined in Section 2(34) will not come to his aid. Section 2(34) which defines ‘public place’, which includes a way or other place, whether thoroughfare or not and does not confine it to a public road. Perusal of the records clearly shows that even the vehicle was not parked within the factory premises but it was outside the premises i.e., on the hind side of the factory and near the Koba i.e., a tea stall where the deceased was standing and the vehicle moved on its own which was parked without hand break or chocking the wheels rolled and collided with koba crushing the deceased in between and caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death on the way to the hospital. In these circumstances, the contention on the basis of Section 2(34) of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 IMV Act, 1989 will not come to the aid of appellant – Insurance Company. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. Accordingly, both the points for consideration raised all answered against the Insurance Company and in favour of appellant/claimants. 9. Point No.(iii): So far as quantum is concerned, as rightly contented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company, PW3 who has been examined to prove the salary certificate at Ex.P10, was a person calling himself as a Manager of Sri Swami Samarath Packing, wherein he has stated that the deceased Vishal Ghoshale was appointed as a plant manager in their company on 01.05.2018 till 15.08.2021. He was getting a salary of Rs.19,500/- per month by cash. A perusal of salary certificate clearly shows that it bears the signature of the proprietor of Sri Swami Samartha Packaging. The person who has been examined is calling himself as the Manager of Sri Swami Samartha. Though he has stated that he is the Manager in Sri Swami Samartha Packaging, however, in the cross-examination he has admitted that he was not given any authorization letter by the owner of the factory and he has admitted that he cannot say the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 registration number of the factory and he has not produced any document to show that Sri Swami Samartha Packaging factory is in existence. Further he has admitted that, he has not produced any document to show that he is working as a Manager in the said factory. He has not produced his ID card before the Court. He has admitted that there is inward and outward register in the factory but he has not produced any such document before the Court and there is no outward number found on the salary certificate at Ex.P10 and he further admits that the factory is maintaining both attendance as well as salary register and the said documents were not produced before the Court. In these circumstances, the veracity of Ex.P10 becomes suspicious and doubtful. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident which had occurred on 15.08.2021 and as per the income fixed under the chart, the same would comes to Rs.14,250/- and in the absence of any income proof, the income of Rs.14,250/- is to be considered as income and considering the age of the deceased, 40% is required to be added. So far as the compensation awarded under the head - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 consortium so also on the other heads, appears to be on the lower side which requires re-consideration. 10. Accordingly, on re-determination, the compensation comes: Loss Dependency 14,250 + 40% x 12 x 16 x ¾ : Rs. 28,72,800/- Loss of Consortium 40,000 x 5 : Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses : Rs. 30,000/- 10% escalation for one completed for three years 23,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 31,25,800/- Accordingly, the claimants are entitle for a total compensation of Rs.31,25,800/- which is rounded off to Rs.31,26,000/- as against Rs.41,01,200/-. The re-determined compensation shall carry interest rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till realisation. In view of enhancing the compensation under the conventional heads and also considering 10% escalation, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is required to be allowed in part, since - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 there is a re-determination on the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, we answer point No.(iii) for consideration as stated above. 11. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following ORDER i) Both the appeals filed by Appellant/claimant in MFA No.201688/2024 and MFA No.200127/2024 are allowed in part, modifying the judgment and award dated 19.10.2023 in MVC No.75/2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - XV, Vijaypura, thereby reducing the compensation from Rs.41,01,200/- to Rs.31,26,000/-. ii) The modified release compensation of Rs.31,26,000/- shall carry interest the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realisation. iii) The amount in deposit before this court in Appeal bearing MFA No.201217/2024 shall be - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5679-DB MFA No. 201668 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 201217 of 2024 transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. iv) The balance re-determined reduced compensation along with accrued interest stated supra shall be deposited by the appellant-insurance company within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal. v) The disbursement as well as apportionment is as per the order of the Tribunal. vi) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT: AK