July 29, 2025

The Karnataka High Court has made a pivotal ruling stating that cohabitation is not a mandatory condition for claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. This judgment emerged from an appeal filed by Ningappa, whose wife, Yallawwa, a highway maintenance worker, tragically lost her life in a road accident in 2021. The incident occurred on July 7, 2021, when Yallawwa was struck by a lorry near the KSRTC bus stand in Nidagundi, located in the Vijayapura district along NH-50. Following the accident, Ningappa submitted a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking redress for the loss of his wife. However, Reliance General Insurance, the insurer, contested his claim, challenging several aspects of the case. They raised doubts regarding the details of the accident, the alleged negligence of the lorry driver, and Ningappa’s dependency status. One of the key points raised by the insurance company was that Yallawwa and Ningappa were allegedly living separately, thus questioning Ningappa's right to compensation for loss of dependency. The claims tribunal in Vijayapura scrutinized the evidence and awarded Ningappa a minimal amount of Rs 70,000 for his loss, primarily due to references in the accident complaint that suggested the couple had been living apart. In his attempt to challenge the tribunal's decision, Ningappa faced the insurer's argument that a statement from Yallawwa's brother claimed she was living separately following Ningappa’s remarriage, which was purportedly due to her inability to conceive. The insurance company relied heavily on this assertion to justify their denial of the claim. Justice Ravi V Hosmani delivered the ruling while considering the inconsistencies in the evidence presented. Notably, the judge highlighted that Yallawwa's brother admitted to being illiterate and not fully understanding the complaint he had signed. Additionally, the court found no substantial evidence backing the claim of Ningappa's remarriage, nor did the cross-examination of the involved parties yield any confirming details. Given these findings, Justice Hosmani deemed the tribunal's refusal to grant dependency compensation unlawful, emphasizing that assumptions of separation cannot stand without clear, corroborated evidence. Recognizing the need for justice and accurate compensation assessments, the court cited the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority's notional income chart for the year 2021, determining Yallawwa’s estimated monthly income at Rs 14,250. Following this evaluation, the court calculated the comprehensive compensation amount to be over Rs 14.9 lakh, which would also accrue an annual interest of 6% from the date the original claim was filed. This landmark ruling not only supports companion cases in Karnataka but also reinforces the need for insurers to thoroughly substantiate their claims regarding separation. The outcome sets a precedent for future cases where questions of cohabitation and dependency arise in accident compensation claims, ensuring that ambiguity does not unduly harm the families of victims. As the legal landscape evolves, cases like Ningappa’s may prompt a reevaluation of how dependency is determined within the context of accident compensation, potentially leading to fairer outcomes for families seeking justice for their losses.

Read More at Timesofindia →

Tags: Karnataka high court, Motor vehicles act, Accident compensation, Cohabitation, Insurance,