- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9745 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9453 OF 2018 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 9745/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. KUMARI AMRUTHA K S D/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT HABBATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALLASANDRA, TUMKUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK, MADHUGIRI TUMKUR - 572 107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD - 560 001 R Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 REP. BY ITS MANAGER 2. MR PRAVEEN KUMAR I B S/O BHIMRAO N NO.72, F BLOCK LINDEN STREET ASHOKNAGAR POLICE QUARTERS SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025 APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.4348/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 9453/2018 BETWEEN: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, EAST WING, M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) AND: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE SHIVARAM, NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. KUMARI AMRUTHA K. S. D/O. LATE SHIVRAMA, NOW AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HEBBATHANAHALLI, TUMKUR HOBLI AND TALUK, MALLASANDRA, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR - 572 107. 3. PRAVEEN KUMAR. I. B. S/O. BHIMRAO N INDI, NO.72, F BLOCK, LINDEN STREET, ASHOKNAGAR POLICE QUARTERS, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 047. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.4348/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SCJ & MACT, BENGALURU, [SCCH-11], AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,15,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Both the matters are to be disposed of in one appeal, as both the appeals are filed against the same order, hence common order is passed in both the appeals. 2. MFA No.9745/2018 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and MFA No.9453/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company disputing the quantum under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2018 passed in MVC No.4348 of 2017, by the I Additional SCJ & MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-11). 3. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, one Manu K. S. died in a road traffic accident on 28.05.2017. His mother and sister filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 and documentary evidence granted an amount of Rs.13,15,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, both the Insurance Company and claimants have preferred these appeals. 5. It is stated that, Manu K. S. was aged 23 years, doing cable work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But no evidence is produced before the Tribunal in proof of his income. As such, the notional income is to be taken as per the guidelines given by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Manu K. S.-deceased met with an accident in the year 2017. Therefore, his income is to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. 40% is to be added towards his future prospects, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1. As per the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 Corporation2, since the deceased was unmarried, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The multiplier applicable is '18'. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,63,200/- (11,000+40%-50%x12x18). 6. This Court finds that, petitioner No.1 is the mother, aged 40 years, is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'filial consortium'. The sister aged 17 years, is also entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection'. In addition, both of them are entitled to Rs.30,000/- under 'conventional heads', as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi(supra). 7. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this court is as below, 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 8. Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.17,73,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 9. Tribunal also held that the offending vehicle neither had a valid and effective driving license nor a fitness certificate. However, it is further held that non-possessing of the fitness certificate is not a reason to deny compensation to the claimants and accordingly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. 10. In this regard, learned counsel for the claimants relied on the case of Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Vs. Banu Begum W/o Mohammed Husen and Others Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 16,63,200.00 Filial consortium 40,000.00 Loss of love and affection 40,000.00 Conventional heads 30,000.00 Total 17,73,200.00 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 (MFA No.202022/2016, dated 08.07.2022), wherein the Coordinate Bench held that though the offending vehicle has no permit, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability. Reliance was also placed on G. P. Boregowda and Others Vs. Umesh and Another (MFA No.4164/2016, dated 27.11.2018), wherein the Coordinate Bench held that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated on the ground of no fitness certificate and they also relied upon Smt. Shardhamma and Others Vs. Afroz Baig and Another (MFA No.116/2017, dated 17.03.2023), in which the Coordinate Bench, relaying on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri. N.Srinivasa Muthy and Others in MFA No.6621/2006 c/w MFA CROB No.304/2006 (disposed of on 18.09.2007), directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the decision in Mr. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 Rajesh Poojary Vs. Mr. Rajesh and Another3, wherein it was held that when insured did not possess a 'fitness certificate', the insurance company was absolved from its liability and the liability is fixed on the insured. They also relied upon another citation in Pareed Pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ernakulam4, wherein it was held as follows: "17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 3 ILR 2019 KAR 2940 4 AIR 2019 Kerala 9 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate." 12. Admittedly, the offending vehicle has no fitness certificate. Now, it is for the Court to decide whether insurance company is liable to pay the compensation or not. It has been clearly held that the absence of a valid fitness certificate amounts to breach of fundamental requirement. As such, insurance company is exonerated from paying the compensation. However, considering the facts of this case, this court finds it reasonable to direct - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 the insurance company to pay the said amount and they are at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. 13. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The Appeals are allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 01.09.2018 passed in MVC No.4348/2017 by the I Additional SCJ & MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-11), in both appeals, is modified; iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.17,73,200/- along with interest at 6% p.a., instead of Rs.13,15,200/- granted by the tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order, with liberty to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37871 MFA No. 9745 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9453 of 2018 recover it from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. v. On such deposit, claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. vi. The amount already deposited before this Court is to be transferred to MACT. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 T: BHK