- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010479732016 NC: 2026:KHC:38784 MFA No. 8317 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8317 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I FLOOR, NO.1576, V V ROAD P B NO.54, MANDYA NOW REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 01 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N. JAGADEESH S/O S NAGARAJAPPA @NAGARAJU NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A NO.313, 5TH CROSS SUGAR TOWN MANDYA CITY-571425 2. S RAVI DEAD BY LRS a). SMT. SHOBHA G B W/O LATE S RAVI NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS JUNIOR ASSISTANT/DATA ENTRY OPERATOR Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010479732016 NC: 2026:KHC:38784 MFA No. 8317 of 2016 KSRTC DIVISIONAL OFFICE KSRTC BUS STAND MANDYA-571425 3. PUNYASHRI D/O LATE S RAVI NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN /MOTHER SMT SHOBHA G.B 4. PARVATHAMMA W/O SHANKARAIAH M/O S RAVI NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O HULIVANA VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571446 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. H B CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2(A) AND R-2(B); R-2(C) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.3.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.473/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADYA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,03,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010479732016 NC: 2026:KHC:38784 MFA No. 8317 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya, in MVC No.473 of 2010. 2. The injured claimant, met with an accident on 21.07.2010, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is held by the Tribunal that respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and directed the respondent No.2-insurance company therein to deposit the amount. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the insurance company and it is contended that on 21.07.2010, the claimant was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA- 11/L-1638 from Sugar Town side towards Pete Beedi near - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010479732016 NC: 2026:KHC:38784 MFA No. 8317 of 2016 Gujari Nalabandawadi first cross road and at that time, the driver of Bajaj Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-21/3172 came in rash and negligent manner to the extreme right side and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. It is contended that the vehicle had no Fitness Certificate as on the date of the accident though it was registered as a transport vehicle. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment in the case of Rangappa @ Rangappashetty vs. Jayaramaiah & Another reported in ILR 2014 KAR 191 and granted compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to consider provisions of Section 56 of MV Act. Tribunal required to have noticed that as there is no Fitness Certificate, registration of vehicle itself comes to an end. It is mandatory on the part of person to ply the vehicle only when the vehicle is duly registered, but as there is no fitness certificate, registration of the vehicle itself come to an end. The mandate of Section 39 of M V Act is not appreciated by the Tribunal. It was stated that there would be no registration of motor vehicle if the Fitness Certificate lapses. Under the said circumstances, the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010479732016 NC: 2026:KHC:38784 MFA No. 8317 of 2016 decision of the Apex Court would prevail and also the provision of law and the decision rendered in the case of Rangappa, cited supra, has no applicability to the facts of the case. It is contended that fastening of liability on the appellant is erroneous and the grant of interest at the rate of 9% per annum is opposed to provisions of Section 149(1) & 171 of M V Act and also Section 34 of CPC. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant-insurance company is that there is no valid fitness certificate for the vehicle in question. In fact, the fitness certificate was renewed only after the accident on 03.08.2010. As such, from 16.01.2009 to 03.08.2010, insured allowed the vehicle to ply on the road without fitness certificate and it is a clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the contemporary Bench in the case of The Manager,The Bajaj Allilanz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramesh M.K. and Others decided in MFA No.501 of - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010479732016 NC: 2026:KHC:38784 MFA No. 8317 of 2016 2021 connected with MFA No.2222 of 2021 dated 09.09.2025. 6. Perusal of the said judgment, indicates that the Contemporary Bench has relied upon the citations in the case of Pareed Pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2019) AIR (Kerala) 9, in the case of Narendar Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd and others reported in (2014)9 SCC 324 and in the case of United India insurance company Ltd. Vs. Shushil Kumar Godara reported in (2021)14 SCC 519, in order to invoke in the principle of pay and recovery. Therefore, it is just and reasonable of direct appellant- insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, and Insurance Company recovers the same from owner of the vehicle. 7. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010479732016 NC: 2026:KHC:38784 MFA No. 8317 of 2016 (ii) The claimant, respondent No.1 herein, is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The appellant-Insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. (v) The appellant-insurance company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. (vi) The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51