- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7197 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SHRI M. SHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE NINGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A PANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI GOPAL S/O BETTEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., V V ROAD, MANDYA-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2; R1-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL, ii) BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARDED DATED 05.11.2019 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA IN M.V.C. NO.574/2018, iii) ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION IN M.V.C. NO.574/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant calling in question the judgment and award dated 05.11.2019 in MVC No.574/2018 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya, whereby the claim petition seeking compensation in respect of death of one Ningamma, aged 45 years claiming to be the adoptive mother of the appellant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 2. Brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: i) The appellant claims to be the adoptive son of deceased Ningamma on the basis of an unregistered adoption deed dated 18.11.2003 (Ex.P.10) said to have been executed by his biological parents in favour of deceased Ningamma. From the date of the said adoption deed, he is considered as an adoptive son of deceased Ningamma. He has also produced the death certificate (Ex.P.8) of deceased Ningamma, wherein in the column No.7 which pertains to mentioning of name of husband/wife, his name is shown as Datthu Maga M. Sharath Kumar. ii) It is the further case of the appellant that he along with his alleged adoptive mother after purchasing food items from the shop of Kiragavalu Thammaiah on 18.09.2017 were waking on the left side of the road on Bannuur-Mandya main road infront of the house of Kempuvanna. At about 7.00 p.m., a motorcycle bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 Reg.No.KA-11-EB-0320 came in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed so as to endanger to human life and dashed against the said Ningamma, causing sever injuries on her head, resulting in bleeding from her right ear. Immediately, after the accident she was shifted to Bannur General Hospital, but she was declared as dead on the way to the hospital. The appellant claiming to be the adoptive son of said Ningamma, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V. Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- 3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 though served remained absent and placed exparte. Respondent No.2 filed objections and denied that the petitioner is the adoptive son and he is not the dependant legal heir within the expression contained under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 4. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, framed the following issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 18.09.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with his adopted mother were walking from Kiragavalu Thammaiah shop after purchase of some food item, when they were walking on the left side of the road, near house of Kempuvanna on Bannur-Mandya road, one motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-EB-0320 being ridden by its rider in an actionable rash and negligent manner came from Bannur side had dashed against the petitioner. On account of which petitioner and his mother fell down and thereafter his mother Smt. Ningamma had succumbed to those injuries? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation is so to what quantum and from which of the respondents? 3. What order or award?” 5. The appellant in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked total 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to 11. The contesting respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 No.2 neither led any oral evidence nor got marked any documents on its behalf. 6. The Tribunal upon pleadings and evidence available on record proceeded to answer the issue No.1 in the Affirmative holding that the death of Ningamma is due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. However, proceeded to answer issue No.2 in the Negative on the premise that the petitioner has not placed any sufficient material to prove that he is the dependant legal heir of deceased Ningamma to clam compensation as contemplated under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal based its findings on the fact that appellant except producing adoption deed dated 18.11.2023 which is said to have been executed by his biological parents in favour of deceased Ningamma, not produced any other document such as, SSLC Marks Card, PUC Marks in view of admission of the appellant that he was studying PUC at the time of accident to establish the fact that he has declared before the concerned authorities - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 that he is the adoptive son of deceased Ningamma. Having answered issue No.2, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. It is this judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is called in question in the present appeal. 7. Heard Sri Sanath Kumara K.M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Ravish Benni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 – Insurance company. Respondent No.1 though served remained unrepresented. 8. Sri Sanath Kumara K.M., leaned counsel for the appellant vehemently contend that the appellant/petitioner has produced adoption deed dated 18.11.2003. But, the Tribunal erred in holding that the adoption deed is not a registered document and cannot be looked into. He contends that the adoption deed need not be a registered document in terms contained Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, ‘H.A. & M. Act’), which says presumption as to documents relating - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 to adoption and suggests that if the document is registered, there is a presumption of adoption. Though the adoption is an unregistered, it can be relied upon to prove the adoption. The Tribunal has failed to consider the adoption deed. To buttress his argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Punjab and Harayana in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. SUKHPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER1 and submits that once a deed of adoption takes place on a particular day on which religious ceremony is performed in the presence of family or friends of child under the provisions of H.A.& M.Act, an unregistered document would relate back to the date of adoption on the subsequent registration and could be treated as valid adoption. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, Sri Ravish Benni supporting the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal would submit that except producing the alleged adoption deed, the 1 CWP No.28074/2024 (O &M), DD:13.02.2025 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 petitioner has not produced any document. He further submits that even according to the appellant he has studied upto PUC-II. However, the appellant has not produced educational certificates such as, SSLC or PUC-II marks cards or any other school certificate wherein he has declared before the concerned authorities that he is the adoptive son of deceased Ningamma. Even the appellant did not took pain to examine his adoptive father to substantiate his claim that the conditions required for valid adoption in terms of provisions of H.M. & A. Act are complied. 10. Sofar as the judgment referred to above in the case of SUKHPREET KAUR, wherein the High Court clearly states that though the adoption deed was unregistered, it was subsequently registered and it relate back to the date of execution of the document, the said decision has no application in the present case. Though in the said judgment, the name of the adoptive parent was not reflecting in the school records, the High - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 Court considered the adoption deed on the premise that on the subsequent registration, it relates back to the date of the execution and the adoptive child shall not be deprived of the right to claim compassionate appointment on the death of the adoptive father. As such, the judgment relied on by the appellant is not applicable to the case on hand and sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers along with the records. 12. The only point that arises for consideration is that: Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition holding that the appellant has not proved that he is the dependant legal heir of the deceased person? 13. My answer to the above point for consideration is in the affirmative for the following reasons. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 14. As could be born out from the record that except producing adoption deed which is an unregistered deed drawn on a stamp paper of Rs.2/- said to have been executed by the biological parents in favour of deceased Ningamma, no other document has been produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim that he is the adoptive son of deceased Ningamma. The document i.e., death certificate cannot be looked into for the reason, it is a document subsequent to the death of said Ningamma and as per the information furnished by the appellant. Though the applicant reflected his name in the death certificate in a column which is provided to show the name of husband/wife, which is also not in accordance with law. 15. It is very strange that the appellant has not examined his father to substantiate the claim that all the mandatory conditions required under the provisions of H.A. & M Act to substantiate that there is a valid adoption. No doubt, an unregistered adoption deed can be looked into but it requires substantial proof either by the attesting - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 witnesses to the said document or by the parents who have given the child in adoption. In the absence of any material and evidence on record to substantiate the claim of the appellant, the Tribunal rightly comes to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the dependant legal heir within the meaning of Section 166 of M.V. Act. 16. The judgment in the case of Sukhpreet Kaur (supra) will not come to the aid of appellant as the facts in the said case are different from the present case. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court come to the conclusion that there is no error committed by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant has not proved that he is the dependant legal heir of the deceased Ningamma. There is one more reason in addition to the reason assigned by the Tribunal is that the appellant being son of brother of the deceased will not come within the class of heirs as described under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 ‘the H.S.Act’). In these circumstances, the appeal sans merits, accordingly not entertained maintaining the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 17. However, before parting with the case, it is to be born in mind that the death of Ningamma having been proved as caused by the actionable negligence of the rider of the motorcycle cannot be brushed aside to award appropriate compensation for the wrong done by the rider of the motorcycle in view of the answer of the Tribunal in the Affirmative to issue No.1. The legal heirs as contemplated under Section 15 of the H.S. Act are entitled for compensation which amounts to be an appropriate estate left by the deceased in terms of law. The father of appellant being brother of deceased comes as a heir within Section 15 of the H.S. Act and entitled for the compensation and may claim for compensation, if so advised. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30749 MFA No. 7197 of 2021 18. It is made clear that that the dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that there is failure on the part of the appellant to prove that he is dependant legal heir will not come in the way of the brother of deceased stalking claim for compensation. 19. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE BL List No.1 CT: AK