- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8050 MFA No. 103957 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103957 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TONTADARYA VIDYAPEETH BUILDING, ROTARY CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD, GADAG, PIN-582 101, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DIVISIONAL MANAGER. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARNAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LALITHA W/O SANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: VAIJPAYINAGAR, GAJENDRAGAD, DIST: GADAG, PIN-582 114. 2. SANGANAGOUDA S/O VENKAANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VAIJPAYINAGAR, GAJENDRAGAD, DIST: GADAG, PIN-582 114. 3. RAJESHWARI D/O SANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8050 MFA No. 103957 of 2019 R/O: VAIJPAYINAGAR, GAJENDRAGAD, DIST: GADAG, PIN-582 114. 4. VINAYAKA S/O SANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VAIJPAYINAGAR, GAJENDRAGAD, DIST: GADAG, PIN-582 114. MALLAPPA KALAKAPPA KEMPANAL, SINCE DECEASED BY RL’S., 5. BASAVVA W/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, POST :KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 6. NEELAPPA S/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, POST: KALAKALESHWAR, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 7. YALLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, POST: KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 8. RAVIKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, POST: KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 9. AKKAMAHADEVI W/O PRAKASH MALLAD, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, POST: KALAKALESHWAR, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 10. SHOBHA W/O YAMANURAPPA GURIKAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, POST: KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8050 MFA No. 103957 of 2019 11. MANJUNATH S/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, POST: KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 12. UMESH S/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, POST: KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 13. ASHOK S/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, POST: KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 14. BASAVARAJ S/O MALLAPPA KEMPANAL, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, POST: KALAKALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5, R6 AND R8 TO R14-SERVED; R7-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.297/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADAG. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8050 MFA No. 103957 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 29.06.2019 passed in MVC No.297/2013 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag1, praying to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is the grounds urged and the submission of counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the deceased was bachelor of 17 years old minor boy, but the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be on higher side. Therefore, prays to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8050 MFA No. 103957 of 2019 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the claimant was 19 years old boy, but not 17 years old boy at the time of accident. Whatever may the age, 17 years is the starting of earning age so as to support the family and at this stage, the deceased died. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held and accordingly determined the compensation. Hence, there is no good grounds made out to make interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 6. Amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8