- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3514 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: MRS. SUSHEELA W/O LATE BHASKARA @ BHASKAR PURUSHA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT H NO.6-465, PUDDOTTU HOUSE, KOLNADU VILLAGE, SALETHOOR POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 241 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. RAJESH SHETTY S/O LATE SAJEEVA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT JYOTHI NIVASA, MADAPPADY HOUSE, SHIBRIKERE POST, YADAPADAVU VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 150 2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COM LTD CITY TRADE CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, OPP CITY HOSPITAL KADRI, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K DISTRICT – 575 003 Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1073/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & II ADDL. MACT. D.K., MANGALURU D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the claimant calling in question the judgment and award dated 03.01.2019 passed in MVC No.1073/2016 by the I Addl. District Judge & II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru (DK)1. 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,98,900/- together with interest at 6% p.a. Further the Tribunal exonerated the insurer/respondent No.2 from payment of the 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 compensation and fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the vehicle/respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the above appeal challenging the findings of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer from payment of the compensation, as also seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court. 4. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that, claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a road traffic accident which occurred on 04.04.2016, the wife of the deceased filed the claim petition arraying owner and insurer of the offending Tipper Lorry as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, before the Tribunal. 5. Both the respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed the statement of objections. The respondent No.2/insurer specifically contended that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 the insured lorry did not have a permit. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and a witness as PW2. The representative of the insurer was examined as RW1. The Tribunal by its judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition as noticed above. 6. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry appearing for the appellant/ claimant and learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep appearing for respondent No.2/insurer. The owner/respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that no documents have been produced to demonstrate that the insured vehicle did not have a permit. Hence, the finding exonerating the insurer from the payment of compensation is erroneous. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation is on the lower side. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer justifies the finding recorded by the Tribunal both on liability as well as on the quantum. 9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. 10. The questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer from payment of compensation is erroneous and liable to the interfered with? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? RE. QUESTION No.(i): 11. The respondent No.2/insurer in its statement of objections filed before the Tribunal has admitted the policy of insurance and has specifically contended that there is no valid permit for the insured vehicle, apart from other - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 defences. The respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle has, in the statement of objections, admitted the accident but denied the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. It is further stated that driver had a valid driving licence and the policy was insured with the respondent No.2/insurer. Hence, it is contended that the compensation, if any, is liable to be paid by the insurer. The representative of the insurer who had been examined as RW1, admits the issuance of policy of the insurance. However, it is specifically deposed that the vehicle was not having a permit as on date of the accident and hence, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. 12. The insurer having taken a specific defence that the insured vehicle did not have valid permit, it was the onus of the respondent No.1/owner to produce the permit, if any. In the absence of the same, the finding of the Tribunal that the insured vehicle was being plied without permit is just and proper. However, the Hon’ble Supreme - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS2 considering a case where the insured vehicle had no permit, held that the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of holding that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, Question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered as partly in the affirmative. RE. QUESTION No.(ii): 13. The claimant was stated to be a Trombone player and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, no documents have been produced to demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Keeping in mind 2 (2018) 7 SCC 558 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 the date of accident, the notional income assessed by the tribunal is marginally on the higher side. However, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘5’ and awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards ‘loss of dependency’, which is just and proper. Although the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on conventional heads is marginally on the lower side, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal which includes the compensation towards medical expenses in a sum of Rs.1,28,868/- and the total compensation amounting to Rs.5,98,900/-, is just and proper and no interference in the same is warranted. Hence, Question No.(ii) is answered in the negative. 14. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 03.01.2019 passed in MVC No.1073/2016 by the I Addl. District Judge and II Addl. Motor Accident - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25220 MFA No. 3514 of 2019 Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru (DK), is modified to the extent of holding that the insurer (respondent No.2 in the appeal as well as before the Tribunal) shall be liable to pay the compensation awarded together with accrued interest with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In all other aspects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; (iii) Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. (iv) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15