- 1 - MFA No.608 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.608/2024(MV-D) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.5 & 6, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001 POLICY NO.0729023118P100466381 ISSUED BY D.O.II, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALMATTA, MANGALORE-575 001, VALID 08.04.2018 TO 07.04.2019. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SEETHARAMA RAO .B.C., ADVOCATE AND SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. SHAGUFTHA ABZAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O MR. ABZAL HUSSAIN, NO.9, WOOD STREET, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 025. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.3-98/6/2, DARUL AMEN, NEAR MADANI MASJID, PERMANNUR, MANGALORE-575 017. 2. SMT. LUBABA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O MR. MOHAMMED HANEEF, RESIDING AT NO.3-123/1, - 2 - MFA No.608 of 2024 KOTEKAR, MANGALORE-DK-575 022. 3. SMT. SUNAINA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O MR. ABOOBACKAR SADDIQ ABDULLA, RESIDING AT NO.8-13-954-1, KARBALA COMPUND, NEAR: JAMIA MASJID, KUDROLI, MANGALORE-DK-575 003. 4. SRI. JAYARAMA GOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, S/O SRI KUSAPPA GOWDA, RESIDENT OF BANTHUKAL HOUSE, NETTANIGE MUNOOR VILLAGE, KARNOOR POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATE GOWDA .K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.11.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.2882/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, CORUT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,46,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - MFA No.608 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 08.11.2023 passed in MVC No.2882/2022 on the file of the VII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 3. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The injured/claimant by name Sri. M.Moideen aged 73 years, met with an accident on 09.01.2019 and subsequently his married daughters 3 in numbers, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.27 lakhs. The tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.6,46,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 4. The Tribunal committed error after holding that the respondent No.4 violated the terms of the policy by entrusting - 4 - MFA No.608 of 2024 his vehicle to the person who has no driving license to drive the motor cycle. The Tribunal erred in following the law laid down as per the Division Bench judgment in MFA No.3297/2019 (DB) dated 13.04.2023 in case of Smt.Adilakshmamma Vs C.Raju & Anr in which it was held that the insurer would not suffer liability to indemnify the insured if driver/rider had no DL at all. The Tribunal found that there was fundamental breach of the policy, terms and the provisions of the MV Act and directed him to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner, instead of absolving them from the liability. 5. Further the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the present appeal are married daughters of the deceased Sri.M.Moideen are residing in their respective marital homes and they are not dependent on their aged father, who crossed the age of earning. As such, they are not entitled for the compensation amount except loss of estate and conventional amount. The findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence on the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-06/D-1558 is contrary to the evidence on record and requires to be set aside. Hence, requested this court to set aside the award of the tribunal. - 5 - MFA No.608 of 2024 6. Sri.M.Moideen was walking on the National Highway No.66, to cross the road in front of Dakshina Kannada Garage Owners Association Building at Jappina Mogaru, Mangalore City, a Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-21-U-4407 ridden by its rider at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against said Sri.M.Moideen. As a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the hospital. But the doctors declared him as brought dead. He was aged 70 years, was earning Rs.27,000/- as a business man. 7. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 remained absent after the service of notice. The Insurance Company contended that the petitioners are not legal heirs and are not dependent on the deceased. It was observed that the petitioners are married daughters and they are residing separately in their respective houses, along with their husband and contended that they are not entitled for compensation under all heads. 8. The Tribunal relied upon the citation in MFA No.1028-68/2014 in case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Gangappa in which it was - 6 - MFA No.608 of 2024 observed that major sons and married daughters are entitled to claim compensation under all heads. 9. As per Ex.P5 the post mortem report, the age of the Sri.M.Moideen was 70 years and the multiplier is taken ‘5’. He has not filed any income proof as per the Minimum Wages Act, as he was unskilled worker. The Tribunal considered his income as Rs.12,420/- per month. But this petition is filed under Motor Vehicle Act, and he met with an accident on 09.01.2019. Therefore, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.14,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Further, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the citation reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1219 (Sarla Verma) and hence the loss of dependency comes to Rs.14000 X 12 X 5 - 1/3rd = Rs.5,60,000/- (Rs.8,40,000 less Rs.2,80,000). The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 who are the daughters of the deceased, each of them are entitled for an amount of Rs.44000/- towards parental consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.33,000/- under conventional head as - 7 - MFA No.608 of 2024 per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. 10. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company relied upon the citation reported in Civil Appeal Nos.6641- 662/2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) nos. 22265-22266 of 2018) dated 13.05.2025 in case of Deep Shikha and Ors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors. in which it was held as follows: “13. Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased. Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards loss of dependency 5,60,000 2 Towards loss of consortium (3 claimants) 1,32,000 3 Conventional heads 33,000 Total 7,25,000 - 8 - MFA No.608 of 2024 will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that Appellant No. 1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased. 16. The obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority. The deceased, being the only provider, would be assumed to be fulfilling this obligation, further reinforcing Appellant No. 2's status as a dependent. Therefore, the untimely demise of the deceased may create difficulties for Appellant No. 2 going forward, resulting in hardship. Even if it is assumed that Appellant No. 2 was not dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident, the possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded.” 11. Learned counsel for appellant also relied upon the citation in case of Naitonal Insurance Company Limited Vs Birender and Ors reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 434 in which it was held as follows:- “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a - 9 - MFA No.608 of 2024 right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” 12. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon Civil Appeal No.2323/2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No.444 of 2025) in case of Seema Rani & Ors vs The origental Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors in which it was held that son of the deceased was working at petrol pump and other son was involved in temporary employment opportunity. Both of them are residing with the deceased. Therefore it cannot be said that they were self sufficient or independent, by applying ex- position in Birender case (supra). Hence, this court finds there is no reason to exclude married daughters from the compensation. As the appellants are married children and they are not dependent on the deceased, but they are legal - 10 - MFA No.608 of 2024 representatives of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the income, was taken for assessing the loss of estate and amounts were granted under other heads. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon Birender case (supra) in which it was held, even major married and earning sons are covered by expression ‘legal representative’ of the deceased and further held that the claimants 2 to 4 are dependents on the deceased. Hence, the tribunal is bound and dutiful to consider their application irrespective of whether they are fully dependent on the deceased or not, to limit their claim towards the conventional heads only. 14. Learned counsel for respondents also relied upon another judgment stated in MFA No.3886/2020 & connected matter dated 17.10.2025 wherein it was held that “it is not uncommon for daughters and sisters, even after marriage, to maintain a close relationship with their parental family. The earning member of the family often contributes towards their welfare and social needs. Therefore, their right to claim compensation cannot be denied merely on the ground of their marital status.” - 11 - MFA No.608 of 2024 15. In the present case, the tribunal observed that the mother of the petitioners already died in the accident. Admittedly, these petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased father. Though they are residing in their matrimonial house along with their respective husbands, as there are no other dependents, it cannot be said that they are not the dependents on their father and not entitled for compensation. The argument of the insurance company cannot be accepted. 16. The tribunal considering all the aspects ordered for pay and recovery as the driver of the offending vehicle has no driving license. 17. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed and the amount is modified in MVC No.2882/2022 dated 08.11.2023 on the file of the VII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. - 12 - MFA No.608 of 2024 ii. The petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.6,46,800/- granted by the tribunal. iii. Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. iv. On such deposit, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the amount equally, along with interest accrued on the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR