Divisional Manager vs Kanchan Iroji - Motor Vehicle Accident Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 8, Cited by 0 ] ### 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.

1. SHRI. SHANKAR NINGAPPA IROJI,
   AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
   R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI,
   SAMBRA, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.

2. SMT. PARVATI W/O. SHANKAR IROJI,
   AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
   WORK, R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI,
   SAMBRA, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.

3. SHRI. UMESH Y. KALKHAMBKAR,
   AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK,
   R/O: NAVI GALLI, SHINDOLLI,
   TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.

4. 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

1. 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).

2. THE MANAGER,
   ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ
   INSURANCE CO., LTD., HAVING ITS,
   REGIONAL OFFICE, AT:
   SHRI. BALAJI SOVEREIGN, NO.132,
   2ND FLOOR BRIGADE ROAD,
   BANGALORE.

3. SHRI. SHANKAR NINGAPPA IROJI,
   AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ARICULTURE,
   R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, SAMBRA,
   TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI.

4. SMT. PARVATI
   W/O. SHANKAR IROJI,
   AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
   R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, SAMBRA,
   TALUK & DIST: BELAGAVI.

5. 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.

1. MFA no.21487/2013 is by claimants, while MFA

no.22592/2013 is by Insurer.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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

1. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal.

2. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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

1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused

impugned judgment and award.

1. 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:

1. 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.

1. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency

would be Rs.4,75,200/- [3,300(-1/3rd)x12x18].

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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:

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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