- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100881 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100880 OF 2018 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 100881/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.GOVARDHANA S/O ANJINEYA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOSA DAROJI VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, NOW AT BANDIHATTI, BALLARI-583128. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA., ADV) AND: 1. SRI. HULUGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER OF AUTO BEARING REGN.NO.KA-34/TR-4288, R/O: NEAR HULEPPATATA TEMPLE, OLD DAROJI, SANDUR TALUK, DIST: BALLARI-583218. 2. M/S. NATINOAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, DOUBLE ROAD, PARAVATHINAGAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, 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:28.09.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO.1442/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V, BALLARI, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 100880/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHA S/O LESI YELLAMMA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: EX-MESTRI, R/O: HOSA DAROJI VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, NOW AT BANDIHATTI, BALLARI-583128. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M AMAREGOUDA., ADV) AND: 1. SRI. HULUGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER OF AUTO BEARING REGN.NO.KA-34/TR-4288, R/O: NEAR HULEPPATATA TEMPLE, OLD DAROJI, SANDUR TALUK, DIST: BALLARI-583218. 2. M/S. NATINOAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, DOUBLE ROAD, PARAVATHINAGAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY M.K. SOUDAGAR, 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:28.09.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO.1441/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award dated 28.09.2016 passed in MVCs No.1441/2014 and 1442/2014 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.V, Ballari (‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 2.1. On 20.03.2014 at about 07:30 p.m., the petitioners were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-35/U-5066. One Govardhan was riding the said motorcycle on the proper side of the road. At that time, near Daroji Railway Station, Hosa Daroji Village, respondent No.1 drove the auto-rickshaw bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 Reg.No.KA-34/TR-4288 in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle. As a result, the petitioners have sustained grievous injuries and accordingly, filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. 3. The driver-cum-owner of the auto- rickshaw/respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that, as of the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against respondent No.1. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, as of the date of accident, the vehicle was not registered. Thus, there is a violation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 policy condition. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions and framed separate relevant issues. 6. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner in MVC No.1441/2014 examined himself as PW- 1, the petitioner in MVC No.1442/2014 examined himself as PW-2, the Doctor was examined as PW-3 and marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined its Officer as RW-1 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2; and respondent No.1 examined himself as RW-2 and marked one document as Ex.R3. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded compensations of Rs.3,70,200/- to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 petitioner in MVC No.1441/2014 and Rs.13,000/- to the petitioner in MVC No.1442/2014 and the liability has been fastened on respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver of the auto-rickshaw on the ground that, as of the date of accident, the temporary registration of the vehicle was expired; thus, there is a violation of policy condition, and the petition against the Insurance Company was dismissed. 8. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award, regarding the quantum of compensation, filed these appeals. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner-cum-driver of the auto-rickshaw. He submits that, the Insurance Company has collected the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 premium for one year. As of the date of accident, the policy was in force. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. He also submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.1441/2014 is on the lower side. The petitioner has examined the Doctor as PW-3, who opined that the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 80% to the whole body, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 20%, which is on the lower side. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeals. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, temporary registration certificate of the auto-rickshaw was expired as of the date of accident and it was not registered. Thus, there is a violation of policy condition and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petitions against the Insurance - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 Company. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. Reg. Liability: 13. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident and the petitioners suffered injuries in a road traffic accident. The petitioners, to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw in question, produced the certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P5, which discloses that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. The Tribunal is justified in recording its finding that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 14. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defence in its statement of objection that, as of the date of accident, temporary registration of the auto-rickshaw was expired. Thus, there is a breach of policy condition. The question in this case is, whether non-registration would amount to breach of policy condition or not. The auto- rickshaw was insured with the Insurance Company. Thus, there is a contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the auto-rickshaw. The Insurance Company has collected the premium for the whole year. If the intention of the Insurance Company is that the insurance policy covers only for the period of registration, it should have noticed the insured towards the third-party liability. The insurance was done based on the engine number, chassis number and not on the registration number. These numbers will be duly mentioned in the insurance policy at the time of purchasing vehicle and not the registration number. There is a contract between the insured and the insurer. It is not insured based on the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 temporary registration number or permanent registration number. No such condition was stipulated in the insurance policy. The Insurance Company cannot escape its liability towards third-party liability merely on the ground that the vehicle not being registered as of the date of accident. The contract of insurance is based on the good faith applicable to both the parties. It can be safely said that, there is no connection between the accident and registration/non-registration of the vehicle. 15. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others1, held that, the non-registration of a vehicle is a fundamental breach of a policy condition. However, to protect the third-party rights, the conditions can be construed to be fundamental only against the insured and not against the third-party risk. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners are 1 (2014) 9 SCC 324 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 the third-parties and not the insured. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not applicable to the case on hand. 16. In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability only on the owner, without considering that there is no such condition in the contract. Non-registration of the vehicle is not a ground to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. Thus, this Court holds that, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured against the third-party. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the owner-cum-driver and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amounts. Reg. Quantum of compensation: In MFA No.100880/2018: 17. The petitioner was aged about 19 years as of the date of accident. The accident occurred in 2014. The - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 petitioner has not produced any credible proof of income. In the absence of proof of income, this Court has assessed the notional income as per the schedule notified by the KSLSA i.e., Rs.7,500/-. 18. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW-3, who has deposed that he has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-10 and he has opined that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability at 80% to the whole body. 19. Considering the evidence of PW-3 and the medical records, this Court reassessed the disability of the petitioner at 30% to the whole body. 20. Considering the nature of injuries and the medical records, this Court reassessed the compensation under the following heads: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 10,000/- 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses, attendant, conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental expenses 6,200/- 30,000/- 3 Loss of earning during treatment period 15,000/- 22,500/- 4 Loss of future earnings 3,24,000/- 4,86,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12 x ‘18’ x 30%) 5 Loss of amenities 15,000/- 30,000/- Total : 3,70,200/- 6,18,500/- Compensation enhanced by: 2,48,300/- 21. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,18,500/- as against Rs.3,70,200/-. The petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,48,300/-. IN MFA No.100881/2018: 22. In this case, the injuries suffered by the petitioner are simple in nature. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, has rightly awarded global compensation of Rs.13,000/- which, in my considered view, is just and proper and do not call for interference. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 23. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) MFA Nos.100881/2018 and 100880/2018 are allowed in part. (II) The common judgment and awards passed by the Tribunal are modified. (III) The petitioner in MVC No.1441 of 2014 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,48,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (IV) The compensation awarded to the petitioner in MVC No.1442/2014 is affirmed. (V) The driver-cum-owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and the insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13207 MFA No. 100881 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100880 of 2018 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (VI) The petitioners are not entitled to any interest for the delay period of 427 days in filing the appeals. (VII) Registry is directed to transfer the deposit, if any, and the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA, RK CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28