Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Kanchan W/O Ramesh Iroji on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21487/2013 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22592/2013 (MV-D)
IN MFA No. 21487/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KANCHAN W/O. RAMESH IROJI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. KUMARI. ARCHANA D/O. RAMESH IROJI,
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
3. KUMARI. CHAITANYA D/O. RAMESH IROJI,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
ALL ARE R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI,
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
SAMBRA, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad bench
Date: 2026.03.23 10:02:34
+0000
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. BALAJI TRANSPORT,
R/BY ITS PARTNER,
NO-42, SAMBRA AIRPORT ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
2. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
AT:SHRI BALAJI SOVEREIGN,
NO-132, 2ND FLOOR, BRIGED ROAD,
BANGALORE.
3. SHRI. SHANKAR NINGAPPA IROJI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI,
SAMBRA, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. PARVATI W/O. SHANKAR IROJI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
WORK, R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI,
SAMBRA, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI. UMESH Y. KALKHAMBKAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK,
R/O: NAVI GALLI, SHINDOLLI,
TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
OFFICE AT NEAR R.P.D. CROSS,
KHANAPUR ROAD,TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 - SERVED;
SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R6)
THS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.908/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACT
COURT - II AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BELAGAVI, DATED
29.09.2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 22592/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO., LTD., OFFICAE AT NEAR
RPD CROSS, KHANAPUR ROAD,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI,
NOW REP. BY ITS,
LEGAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD., BELLAD BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KANCHAN
W/O. RAMESH IROJI,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, SAMBRA,
TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. KUMARI ARCHANA
D/O. RAMESH IROJI,
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, SAMBRA,
TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. KUMARI CHAITANYA RAMESH IROJI,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, SAMBRA,
TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI.
SINCE THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 AND 3 BEING THE
MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
4. M/S BALAJI TRANSPORT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
NO.42, SAMBRA AIRPORT ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
(OWNER OF MOTOR BEARING
NO.KA-22/B-145).
5. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ
INSURANCE CO., LTD., HAVING ITS,
REGIONAL OFFICE, AT:
SHRI. BALAJI SOVEREIGN, NO.132,
2ND FLOOR BRIGADE ROAD,
BANGALORE.
6. SHRI. SHANKAR NINGAPPA IROJI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ARICULTURE,
R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, SAMBRA,
TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SMT. PARVATI
W/O. SHANKAR IROJI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, SAMBRA,
TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. SHRI. UMESH Y. KALKHAMBKAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: NAVI GALLI, SHINDOLI,
TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R5;
R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1;
NOTICE TO R4 TO R6, R7 - SERVED;
NOTICE TO R8 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
THS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW
THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2012 PASSED BY
THE FTC - II AND ADDITIONAL MACT., BELAGAVI IN MVC
NO.908/2011, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 29.09.2012
passed by Fast Track Court-II and Addl. MACT, Belagavi1 in
MVC no.908/2011, these appeals are filed.
2. MFA no.21487/2013 is by claimants, while MFA
no.22592/2013 is by Insurer.
3. Sri Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for appellants
submitted that appeal by claimants was for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted that on 12.06.2010, Ramesh
Shankar Iroji was riding motorcycle bearing no.KA-22/TC-201
from Belagavi towards Sambra at about 10.30 p.m., near
Ballary Nala when driver of tanker bearing no.KA-22/B-0145
1
For short, ‘Tribunal’
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
had parked his tanker on road, causing obstruction. On account
of same, Ramesh did not notice parked vehicle and motorcycle
dashed against parked tanker. In accident, Ramesh sustained
grievous injuries and died during treatment. His wife, minor
children and parents filed claim petition under Section 163A of
Motor Vehicles Act, 19882, against owner and insurer of
motorcycle and Tanker Lorry.
4. Despite service of notice, owners of motorcycle and
lorry did not appear. They were placed ex-parte. Insurers
appeared and opposed claim petition on all grounds.
5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimants examined two witnesses as PW1
and PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P10. Insurer
examined its official as RW1 and got marked documents at
Exs.R1 to R3.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to contributory negligence of motorcycle rider to extent of
25% and 75% due to illegal parking of Lorry on road by lorry
driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,13,000/-.
2
For short, ‘MV Act‘
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
7. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal.
8. It was submitted, though claimants stated that
deceased was 27 years old working as Mason and earning
Rs.3,300/- per month, Tribunal considered Rs.3,000/- only as
monthly income. It was submitted, though deceased was 27
years of age and multiplier applicable was ’18’, Tribunal
erroneously applied multiplier of ’17’. It was submitted, even
award of compensation under conventional heads was not in
accordance with law and sought for allowing of appeal filed by
claimants.
9. In support of submission, he relied on decision of
this Court in case of Smt. Yashoda and Ors. V. Praveen @
Pradeep @ Papu S/o. Puttaswamygowda @
Kenchegowda3.
10. On other hand, Sri SK Kayakamath, learned counsel
for Insurer of motorcycle submitted that challenge by Insurer
was against apportionment of liability to extent of 25%. It was
submitted, as per police investigation records relied upon by
claimants, deceased was charge sheeted for riding motorcycle
3
2024:KHC:7531
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
without valid and effective driving licence. Even owner of
vehicle was prosecuted for permitting deceased to ride
motorcycle without driving licence.
11. Under above circumstances, fastening of liability on
Insurer was illegal even if claim were under Section 163A of MV
Act. Said provision absolved requirement of proof of negligence
to claim compensation, but would not prohibit Insurer from
opposing claim on liability. On said ground sought for allowing
Insurer’s appeal.
12. In support of his submission, he refered to
provisions of Section 149 of MV Act, specifying defences
available in case of claims under Section 166 as well as
Section 163A of MV Act. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in
fastening liability on Insurer of motorcycle.
13. Sri GN Raichur, learned counsel appearing for
Insurer of Lorry opposed both appeals. It was submitted, even
if contention that rider of motorcycle did not possess driving
license, Insurer cannot escape from liability. It would require to
pay compensation to claimants and thereafter claim
reimbursement from owner.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
14. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
impugned judgment and award.
15. From above, points that would arise for
consideration are:
1) Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed?
2) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding
Insurer of motorcycle liable to pay
compensation to extent of 25%?
Point no.1:
16. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident involving insured vehicle and liability of Insurer of
Lorry to pay compensation to extent of 75%. Though claimants
stated that deceased was 27 years of age working as Mason
and earning Rs.3,300/- per month, same was not
substantiated. Tribunal assessed it notionally at Rs.3,000/-
even when notional income for year 2010 was Rs.5,500/-.
Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in reducing it to Rs.3,000/-
. Income claimed ought to have been considered. As rightly
submitted, when deceased was 27 years of age, multiplier
applicable would be ’18’. So far as claim under Section 163A of
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
MV Act, deduction towards personal expenses would be fixed at
1/3rd.
17. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency
would be Rs.4,75,200/- [3,300(-1/3rd)x12x18].
18. This Court in its decision reported in Smt. Yashoda
and Ors. (supra) referred Supreme Court judgment in case of
Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu4, has held that
even in case of a claim under Section 163A of MV Act,
compensation towards loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each
has to be granted in addition to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses.
19. In instant case, claimants are wife, two minor
children as well as parents of deceased (arrayed as
respondents no.3 and 4). Therefore, compensation under
conventional heads at Rs.40,000/- in favour of claimant no.1
towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs.40,000/- each to
claimants no.2 and no.3 towards loss of parental consortium
and Rs.40,000/- each to respondents no.3 and 4 towards loss
4
2022 ACJ 166
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
of filial consortium has to be granted in addition to
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses.
20. Thus, total compensation would be Rs.6,50,200/-.
But, by notification dated 22.05.2018, Schedule-II has been
replaced with Clause 1(b) providing for payment of fixed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with Clause 2 providing for
annual escalation by 5% from 01.01.2019.
21. There is no dispute that said notification is
retrospective. Thus, after adding escalation at 5% for seven
years, compensation payable would be Rs.6,75,000/-.
Point no.2:
22. Insofar as liability, there is no dispute about fact
that an abated charge sheet was filed against deceased for
offence under Section 3 of MV Act. Tribunal has also noted that
even respondent no.5-owner of motorcycle was prosecuted for
offence under Section 5 read with Section 180 of MV Act. There
is neither pleading nor effort on part of claimants to establish
deceased was having valid and effective driving licence.
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
23. There is no dispute about fact that deceased was
rider of motorcycle and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Ningamma and Anr. v. United India
5
Insurance Co. Ltd. , he would not be third party.
Consequently, there cannot be a direction to insurer to pay and
recovery compensation. Instead of Insurer of motorcycle,
liability to pay 25% of compensation would require to be
saddled on owner of motorcycle.
24. Points no.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) MFA no.21487/2013 is allowed in part.
(ii) Claimants are held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.6,75,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum.
(iii) It is clarified that on deposit,
apportionment, deposit and release of
compensation shall follow directions issued
5
2009 ACJ 2020
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4310
MFA No. 21487 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22592 of 2013
HC-KAR
by Tribunal proportionately to reassessed
compensation.
(iv) MFA no.22592/2013 is allowed.
(v) Liability saddled on Insurer of motorcycle is
set aside, Owner of motorcycle is held
liable to pay 25% of compensation amount.
(vi) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
refunded to insurer.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SMM / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
