- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWADBENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101657 OF 2017 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-20, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJESH B RAJANAL, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. AKASH M GHATAGE AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & PAINTING (NOW NIL), R/O: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590201. 2. SHRI KRISHNA PARAPPA MAHESHKAR @ MAHESHKUMAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.790/236/A, GAVISIDDAN MADDI, WARD NO.5, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590210, (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCYLE BEARING TEMP NO.KA-49/5186) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOURABH MIRJI FOR SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADV FOR R1. NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:28.02.2017, PASSED IN MVC. NO.2387/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, RAIBAG, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,56,250/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 passed in MVC No.2387/2014 by the learned MACT, Raibag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 25.04.2014, the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/ED-5410 from Kudachi-Shgunashi, along with his friend Kallappa to attend Jatra of Mallayya. Kallappa was riding the motorcycle and when they reached near the accident spot, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.49/5186 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner incurred huge - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the offending motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the rider of the offending motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending motorcycle. 4. The insurance company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence. The liability of the insurance company is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 124 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-124. In rebuttal, the officer of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R.1 and R.2. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 28.02.2017 and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,56,250/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its final realization and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest. 8. The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that (i) there was a delay in lodging the complaint (ii) the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/ED- 5410 has also contributed to the cause of the accident, and there is contributory negligence. (iii) As of the date of the accident, the registration of the offending vehicle was expired. Hence, there was no registration, as of the date of the accident, and (iv) that the compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/ED- 5410. He submits that the charge sheet is filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle. He also submits that although the insurance company filed a statement of objections, it has not raised a defense regarding lodging of the complaint at a belated stage. He submits that the appellant/ insurance company cannot raise new grounds in the appeal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 without notifying the petitioner. He also submits that the motorcycle was registered and subsequently it expired. He also submits that the insurance company has not raised a defense regarding the expiry of the registration in its statement of objections, and hence, the appellant/ insurance company cannot raise new grounds in the appeal without there being no pleading to that effect, and the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. 14. Regarding Liability: There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle, the petitioner has produced - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-8, which discloses that the rider of the offending motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Admittedly, no charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/ED-5410. The charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-49-5186. Further, the insurance company has not examined any eyewitness to establish that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/ED-5410. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle. 15. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the insurance company has not taken the said defense regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. Further, the Hon’ble - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 Apex Court in the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 at para 17, has held as follows: “17. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.” 16. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. The argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company does not hold water. 17. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the vehicle was temporarily registered. As of the date of the accident, the motorcycle was not duly registered, and the temporary registration certificate was also expired. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 18. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the policy of the insurance certificate was in force as of the date of the accident. The insurance company, while issuing the certificate of insurance, was aware that the insured vehicle had a registration certificate only for a period of 30 days. If the insurance company intended to cover the risk of the vehicle during the period of the registration certificate, 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 certificate of the insurance policy would be in effect as along as the registration certificate of the vehicle is current. Admittedly, the insurance company, having received the premium for one whole year, cannot contend that it is not liable to pay the compensation, more particularly, when the claim is made by a 3rd party. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on both i.e., the owner and the insurance company. In view of the above discussion, the point regarding liability is answered accordingly. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 19. Regarding quantum of compensation: The petitioner has contended that he was an agricultural coolie and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month and he was also doing painting work and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. He was aged 22 years old as of the date of the accident and was maintaining the family. The accident occurred in 2014. Although, the petitioner has not produced any income proof, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Rs.7,500/- is taken as the monthly income of the petitioner. To prove the disability, the petitioner has also examined the Doctor as PW.2 who has issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-105 wherein he has assessed the disability at 40% and the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 15% which is just and proper. The Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation of Rs.3,56,250/- in total. I do not find any error in the impugned award that calls for interference. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12335 MFA No. 101657 of 2017 20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The Impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is hereby confirmed. The Office to transmit the amount in deposit and the TCR to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB