- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102873 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102872 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 102873/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH I M S/O I M JAYANNA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRI., R/O: BHARAMASAGAR, NOW R/AT KAMADOD VILLAGE, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI., ADV) AND: 1. SRI. ANJANAPPA H S/O HANUMAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O: CHADARGOLLA IN JAGALUR, TQ: DIST: DAVANAGERE-577528 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING TP REGISTRATION NO.KA-17/2526) 2. THE MANAGER, LEGAL CLAIMS TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PENINSULA CORPORATION PARK, NICHOLAS PIRMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, GANAPTHARAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013, (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-17/2526) INSURANCE COVERNOTE NO.11957887. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.159/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 102872/2016 BETWEEN: 1. JAGADEESH I M S/O UMAPATHAYYA AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: BHARAMASAGAR, NOW R/AT KAMADOD VILLAGE, DIST: HAVERI. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. ANJANAPPA H S/O HANUMAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O: CHADARGOLLA IN JAGALUR, TQ: DIST: DAVANAGERE-577528 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING TP REGISTRATION NO.KA-17/2526) 2. THE MANAGER, LEGAL CLAIMS TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PENINSULA CORPORATION PARK, NICHOLAS PIRMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, GANAPTHARAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013, (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-17/2526) INSURANCE COVERNOTE NO.11957887 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.158/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINICPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORA JUDGMENT 1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 13.07.2016 passed in MVC Nos.158 of 2014 and 159 of 2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 3. The petitioners were proceeding on their motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16/S-1492 at Bilichoda road, a Maxima Goods Vehicle bearing TP registration No.KA-17/2526 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and collided to the motorcycle of the petitioners. As a result, they sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle appeared through the counsel but did not file a statement of objections. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the vehicle is Maxima goods vehicle bearing TP registration No.KA- 17/2526 was a commercial vehicle and had a package policy valid from 01.01.2013 to 21.12.2013 and it is contended that as of the date of accident, the registration of the said vehicle had expired. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 6. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioners to substantiate their case, examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2, examined the doctor as PW-3 and marked 35 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-35. 8. The insurance company has examined the Senior Executive Claims (Legal) Officer as RW-1 and also examined the First Division Assistant of the Regional Transport Office, Bengaluru, as RW-2 and marked twelve documents as Exhibits R-1 and R-12. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded a compensation of ₹6,58,713/- in MVC No.158 of 2014 and ₹2,36,921/- in MVC No.159 of 2014 and dismissed the claim petitions against the insurance company and directed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount. 10. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and awards filed these appeals. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the insurance company. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions against the insurance company of the offending vehicle. He submits that as of the date of accident, the insurance policy was valid. He submits that the insurance company has collected the premium for one year. However, the Tribunal without considering the said aspect has committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions against the insurance company, only on the ground that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle had expired as of the date of accident. He submits that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner. 13. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as of the date of accident, the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was not in force and had expired. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petitions against the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 16. The points that would arise for consideration are the liability and the quantum of compensation. 17. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and the petitioners have sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioners to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, produced copy of the charge sheet marked as Exhibit P-1. From the perusal of Ex.P-1, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 18. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as of the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not duly registered with the insurance company and the temporary registration certificate had expired. However, the certificate of insurance was in force and the insurance company while issuing the certificate of insurance was aware that the insured - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 vehicle had a registration certificate for only 30 days. If it was the intention of the insurance company to cover the risk of the vehicle during the registration certificate, the insurance company should have issued the policy covering the risk of the vehicle till the date of expiry of the registration certificate and it should have specifically stated in the certificate that the insurance policy would be in effect as long as the registration certificate of the vehicle is current. 19. The insurance company, having received the premium for the whole year, now, it cannot contend that it is not liable to pay the compensation, more particularly, when the claim is made by the third party. The Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions against the insurance company. 20. As on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. As such, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner against the third party. 21. The owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of fastening the liability is liable to be set aside. Further, the insurance company is entitled to avoid the liability only if the conditions specified under Section 149(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are breached. Non-registration of the offending vehicle is not a condition specified in Section 149(2)(a) of the Act. Hence, on these grounds, the dismissal of claim petitions against the insurance company is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the point for consideration regarding the liability is answered. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 Reg.Quantum: 22. As far as the quantum of compensation in MFA No.102872 of 2016, the petitioner was aged about 50 years as of the date of accident and to prove that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability, examined the doctor as PW-3, who has issued a disability certificate marked as Exhibit P-17 and the petitioner was admitted as an in-patient for 93 days. PW-3 has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 70%, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 23.3%. 23. Admittedly, PW-3 is not the treated doctor. As such, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 1/3rd of the disability as assessed by PW-3. In my considered opinion, this assessment of disability by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 24. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of ₹6,58,713/-. 25. The petitioner, to prove his income, has not produced any credible proof of income. In the absence of income proof, this Court has taken the income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, according to which, for the accident date of the year 2013, the income is assessed at ₹7,000/- per month. 26. The petitioner was aged about 50 years. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is “13”. 27. Considering the entire evidence on record, this Court re-assesses the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 52,000/- 60,000/- 2 Medical expenses 3,05,625/- 3,05,625/- 3 Diet, food and nourishment 15,000/- 25,000/- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 charges 4 Loss of earning during treatment period 18,000/- 21,000/- 5 Loss of future earnings 2,18,088/- (6,000/- x 12 x 23.3% x 13) 2,54,436/- (7,000/- x 12 x 23.3% x 13) 6 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/- Total : 6,58,713/- 7,16,061/- Compensation enhanced by: 57,348/- 28. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹7,16,061/-, as against ₹6,58,713/-. Hence, the enhancement of compensation is ₹57,348/-. In MFA No.102873 of 2016: 29. In this case, the petitioner was aged about 31 years as of the date of accident. The petitioner to prove the income has not produced any credible proof of income. In the absence of income proof, this Court has taken the income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority. The accident was of the year 2013 and as such, the income is taken at ₹7,000/- per month as per the schedule. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 30. The petitioner to prove the disability examined the doctor as PW-3. He has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 25%, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 8.3% which, in my considered view, is just and proper. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is “16”. 31. Considering the evidence of PW-3 and other medical records, this Court re-assessed the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 16,000/- 30,000/- 2 Medical expenses 47,305/- 47,305/- 3 4 Diet, food and nourishment charges 10,000/- 25,000/- 5 Loss of earning during treatment period 18,000/- 21,000/- 6 Loss of future earnings 95,616/- (6,000/- x 12 x 8.3% x 16) 1,11,552/- (7,000/- x 12 x 8.3% x 16) 7 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/- Total : 2,36,921/- 2,84,857/- Compensation enhanced by: 47,936/- - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 32. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹2,84,857/- as against ₹2,36,921/- Hence, the enhancement of compensation is ₹47,936/-. 33. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) The Miscellaneous First Appeals are allowed in part. (II) The judgments and awards passed by the tribunal are modified. (III) The petitioner in MVC No.158 of 2014 is entitled for a total compensation of ₹7,16,061 as against ₹6,58,713/-. The petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of ₹57,348/-. (IV) The petitioner in MVC No.159 of 2014 is entitled for a total compensation of ₹2,84,857/- as against ₹2,36,921/-. The petitioner - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911 MFA No. 102873 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016 is entitled for enhanced compensation of ₹47,936/-. (V) The petitioners are entitled for aforesaid compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. (VI) The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. (VII) The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (VIII) The Registry is directed to transfer the trial court records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7