- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: MAHILAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA 49 YEARS R/AT BENAGAL BOVI COLONY, NILAVADI POST HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V., AND SRI. SUMA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. K SRINIVASA S/O KRISHNAPPA R/AT BENAGALU VILLAGE, NILUVADI POST, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT AND ALSO Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 R/AT GUMMANAKOLLI VILLAGE, SOMWARPETE TALUK, COORG DISTRICT - 571 236 2. B. GOVINDA S/O LATE BASANNA 49 YEARS R/AT BENAGALU VILLAGE, NILUVADI POST, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. LEGAL DEPARTMENT, S-5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3; R1 AND R2 - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.10.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.49/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, PERIYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.49/2015 dated 10.08.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. and MACT, Periyapatna, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation and also questioning the liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle. 2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.17,30,000/-. The case of the claimant is that the son of the claimant was loading firewood in the tractor-trailer on 16.05.2014 and after loading firewood he was travelling on the said trailer and because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, it fell into a ditch. Due to the side accident, the deceased fell on the ground and the firewood loaded in the trailer fell on him causing grievous injuries to him resulting in his death on the spot. The Court had fixed the liability on the driver and owner of the vehicle. The reason given by the Court for fixing the liability on the owner and the driver of the vehicle is that only the tractor is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 insured, but not the trailer and undisputedly, the deceased was travelling in the trailer sitting on the firewood at the time of the accident. Hence, it is the owner and the driver alone liable to pay the compensation. Then when it comes to the compensation, the Court had considered the income at Rs.7,500/- per month and granted compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 11,34,000/- 2 Loss of consortium, love and affection Rs. 40,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4 Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 12,04,000/- 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant submits that the Court went wrong in fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle. She submits that even though the tractor is not insured, still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. She relied on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 Smt. Honnamma and others1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in the similar facts and circumstances, where the trailer was not insured, but the tractor was insured had held that, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that in the light of the said law, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation. Then, coming to the compensation, it is submitted that as per the table, the Court ought to have taken the income at Rs.8,500/-. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhondubai vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude2, submits that though it is held that the tractor needs to be insured, however exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court had applied the principle of pay and recover. He submits that in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court which clearly shows that the registration of the trailer is also necessary for imposing the liability on the Insurance Company. In response to that, 1 2025 INSC 625 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2387 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in fact the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhondubai (supra) is considered in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company referred (supra) and submits that this judgment applies to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that claimant is entitled for compensation as per the Workmen's Compensation Act and the income of the deceased have to be taken at Rs.8,000/- and as it is a case of death, 50% has to be deducted. Then, it comes to Rs.4,000/- multiplied by a relevant factor. That is the only liability of the Insurance Company and they are not liable to pay the entire amount. It is submitted that even in the judgment that is referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court had permitted them to realise the remaining amount from the owner of the vehicle. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. 6. Coming to the liability, the facts are that the deceased was a coolie and after loading the firewood, he was sitting on the firewood and travelling in the trailer and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 admittedly trailer was not insured, but the tractor was insured. According to the learned counsel for the claimant as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company case referred (supra), even if the trailer is not insured, the Insurance Company is liable. This Court has perused the judgment that is relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company referred (supra) and it is appropriate to look at paragraph Nos.11 to 20, which reads as follows: "11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example : that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling /driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred. 12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate : if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality. 13. In Dhondubai (supra), the Court stated: ‘5. In a matter of the present nature, the law is well settled that when a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured. Therefore, in a normal circumstance, when the appellant/claimant was travelling in the trailer which was not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be fastened and to that extent the High Court was justified.’ (emphasis supplied) 14. To our mind, the learned Judges in Dhondubhai (supra) did not lay down an absolute - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 principle of law, but taking note of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Brij Mohan, (2007) 7 SCC 56, it was ordered that the ‘respondent- Insurance Company shall pay the amount awarded by the High Court as compensation with the accrued interest and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.’ A decision by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa District v. Koduru Bhagyamma, 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830 is relevant: ‘1. This case has come before this Court on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court as it was contended before the learned Single Judge by the appellant that as the trailer in which the deceased was travelling was not insured, although it was attached to the tractor which was insured, therefore no liability could be fastened upon the insurer. xxx 13. Now on analysis of these judgments and the provisions of law which have been quoted above, we feel that the law has been correctly appreciated by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah v. Vaka Peddi Reddy (supra) and the reasons given by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. We reproduce the Para 26 of the said judgment as under: “The word “vehicle” mentioned in Section 147 is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles, which is stipulated in Section 146. Therefore, the expression vehicle wherever appearing in Chapter X(XI) has to be only read as motor vehicle. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor or a like self-propelled vehicles. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the tractor and in case of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a separate distinction has been drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle i.e., visible in all the definitions and more especially in Chapter XI. The same situation also persists in Chapter X in case of no fault liability wherein it has been stated that whether a death or a permanent disability of any person has been resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles and there is no reference to vehicle as such. This aspect was never considered in any of the decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and also for other side.”’ (underlined in original; emphasis supplied by us through the bold highlight) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 15. Insofar as the Appellant's reliance on C M Jaya (supra) is concerned, we may first set out Section 147 of the MV Act, as it currently stands: ‘147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a transport vehicle, except gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained under any other law for the time being in force, for the purposes of third party insurance related to either death of a person or grievous hurt to a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 person, the Central Government shall prescribe a base premium and the liability of an insurer in relation to such premium for an insurance policy under sub- section (1) in consultation with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected, a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a policy of Insurance issued before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 shall be continued on the existing terms under the contract and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if this Act had not been amended by the said Act. (5) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules or regulations made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the specified time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons'. 16. The provision supra is identical to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was looked at in C M Jaya (supra), wherein a 5-Judge Bench harmonised the decisions of the 3-Judge - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 Benches in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shantibai, (1995) 2 SCC 539 and Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Thapar, (1998) 3 SCC 744 on the extent of liability that could be fastened on the insurer. The Bench of 5 learned Judges held: ‘8. Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court. 9. In Shanti Bai case, [(1995) 2 SCC 539] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, following the case of Jugal Kishore, [(1988) 1 SCC 626 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 222] has held that: (i) a comprehensive policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third-party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit, (ii) that even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an “Act only” policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured, and (iii) that the limit of liability with regard to third-party risk does not become unlimited or higher than the statutory liability in the absence of specific agreement to make the insurer's liability unlimited or higher than the statutory liability. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 10. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in Amrit Lal Sood, [(1998) 3 SCC 744] it is clear that the view taken by the Court is no different. In this decision also, the case of Jugal Kishore [(1988) 1 SCC 626 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 222] is referred to. It is held: (i) that the liability of the insurer depends on the terms of the contract between the insured and the insurer contained in the policy; (ii) there is no prohibition for an insured from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby risk to the gratuitous passenger could also be covered; and (iii) in such cases where the policy is not merely statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be considered to determine the liability of the insurer. Hence, the Court after noticing the relevant clauses in the policy, on facts found that under Section II(1)(a) of the policy, the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to “any person”. The expression “any person” would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in it. Further, referring to the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi, [(1977) 2 SCC 745] it was observed that the said decision was based upon the relevant clause in the insurance policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of the insurer to the statutory requirement under Section 95 of the Act. As such, that decision had no bearing on Amrit Lal Sood case, [(1998) 3 SCC 744] as the terms of the policy were wide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle. Thus, it is clear that the specific clause in the policy being wider, covering higher risk, made all the difference in Amrit Lal Sood case, [(1998) 3 SCC 744] as to unlimited or higher liability. The Court decided that case in the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 light of the specific clause contained in the policy. The said decision cannot be read as laying down that even though the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the statutory requirement, an unlimited or higher liability can be imposed on it. The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible. xxx 14. In the premise, we hold that the view expressed by the Bench of three learned Judges in the case of Shanti Bai [(1995) 2 SCC 539] is correct and answer the question set out in the order of reference in the beginning as under : In the case of the Insurance Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) of the Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount.’ (emphasis supplied) 17. In this light, let us examine the insurance policy, holistically. Relevant clauses read as under: ‘The Policy does not cover: a) Use for Racing, Pace Making, Reliability trails or Speed Testing b) Use for the Carriage of passengers for hire or reward. c) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted under law. xxx LIMITS OF LIABILITY: Under Section 11-1 (i) of the Policy - Death of or bodily injury - Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. xxx B - LIABILITY - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 3. Trailers (IMT 48) 0.001 xxx Legal Liability: 9. To Coolies (IMT 39) 30.002’ (emphasis supplied) 18. What emerges is that the Appellant ought not to be saddled with payment of compensation exceeding what the insurance policy provides for or the limit, if any, set under any law for the time being in force, whichever be the higher amount of the two, in the underlying factual scenario. The amount exclusively payable by the Appellant, however, shall in no case be less than Rs. 9,50,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand). 19. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order, either with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded or fixation of liability on the insurer-Appellant for the accident. The same shall be paid within two months from today after adjusting whatever has been paid earlier, in terms of Order dated 06.02.2023 passed in the present case. However, liberty is granted to the Appellant to recover the differential amount (if any), in terms of Paragraph 18 supra i.e., total compensation awarded less the 0.00 refers to the 'Premium in Rs.' Idib. maximum amount payable, contractually or as per law (whichever be the higher amount), by the Appellant, from the Respondent No. 4 - owner. 20. Accordingly, subject to the above observations and directions, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." [Emphasis supplied] - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 7. In the light of the said judgment, it is clear that though the trailer is not insured, still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as per the Workmen Compensation Act. 8. Then coming to the quantum, the accident had occurred in the year 2014. This Court taking the notional income at Rs.8,500/- per month and considering the age of 21 years, the future prospects at 40% would come to an amount of Rs.3,400/-, which comes to an amount of Rs.11,900/- (Rs.8,500/- + Rs.3,400/-). As he is a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted. Then, the amount would be Rs.5,950/- per month. Hence, under the loss of dependency, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.5,950 X 12 X 18). Towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.44,000/- is granted. Towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.36,000/- is granted. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. M. Malathi - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 And Another3, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards 'Legal Expenses'. 10. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 11,34,000/- 12,85,200/- 2. Loss of consortium, love and affection : Rs. 40,000/- 44,000/- 3. Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/- 00 4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/- 36,000/- 5. Legal expenses : 00 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 12,04,000/- 13,75,200/- Enhancement : Rs. 1,71,200/- 11. Now, when it comes to the liability, the Insurance Company is liable to pay, as the policy is IMT 28, where the liability of the insurer is as per the Workmen's Compensation 3 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 Act. Taking the income at Rs.8,000/-, 50% of it would come to an amount of Rs.4,000/-, Then, Rs.4,000/- multiplied by relevant factor i.e. 224, it would come to an amount of Rs.8,96,000/-. The compensation that is awarded by this Court Rs.13,75,200/-. If an amount of Rs.8,96,000/- is deducted, the remaining amount is Rs,4,79,200/- (Rs.13,75,200 - Rs.8,96,000/-). Hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.8,96,000/- with 12% interest per annum and the remaining amount of Rs.4,79,200/-, respondent No.2 / owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the same and that shall carry 6% interest per annum. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.12,04,000/- to Rs.13,75,200/-. i) Insurance Company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.8,96,000/- with 12% interest per annum as per the Workmen Compensation Act and the remaining amount of Rs.4,79,200/-, respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the same and that shall carry 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33621 MFA No. 697 of 2020 ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) The respondents/insurance company and the owner of the vehicle shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v) On 06.07.2022, the delay of 346 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance company is not liable to pay the interest for the said period. vi) No costs. vii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KG