- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2575 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MAMATHA W/O LATE RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 2. K R GAGANA S/O LATE RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS 3. K R NAVYA D/O LATE RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 5 AND HALF YEARS APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REP.BY APPELLANT NO.1, MOTHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE R/O KULIKERE KOPPALU VILLAGE HALLIMYSORE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHARADAMBA A.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARAJ GANACHARI S/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH KASIM KARLA TANDA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 BEHIND SHANTHINIKETAHANA SCHOOL, BIJAPUR-586 101 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.30, A.N.R CITY CENTRE RAJARAM MOHANROY ROAD SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA, BANGALORE-27 3. SURESHA H B S/O BASAVEGOWDA NO.19, HARALALLI VILLAGE AND POST K.R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 4. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURACE CO.LTD. P B NO.54, MANDYA R/BY THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. 1ST FLOOR, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX OLD KSRTC BUS STAND ROAD HASSAN-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.23.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.257/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.11,57,932/- awarded by the Tribunal and challenging the liability saddled on the insured of the motorcycle by exonerating the insurer of the motorcycle vide judgment and award dated 23.01.2020 in MVC.No.257/2017, is in appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17.06.2016, Ramesh, a 28 year old died. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 16.06.2016, when Ramesh was traveling in unregistered motorcycle bearing engine No.H.A.10EVGHC07444 Chassis No.MBLHA 10BSGH07009 as a pillion rider, along with the rider of the said motorcycle, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-28 N 4975 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, Ramesh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 4. The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has proceeded to award the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 10,87,932 2. Love & affection 15,000 3. Funeral expenses & Transportation charges 15,000 4. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 40,000 Total 11,57,932 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the insurer and perused the material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in saddling 50% liability on the insured by exonerating the insurer of the motorcycle for the reason that as on the date of the accident, the motorcycle in question was not registered. According to her, as on the date of accident, the vehicle in question had a temporary registration and only after the accident, the vehicle was registered and as - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 such, the Tribunal ought to have saddled the liability on the insurer as per the judgment of this Court in the case of C.B.VIRUPAKSHA Vs. SHIVAKUMAR & ANOTHER - 2001 SCJ 1410 and subsequently in the case of NIRANJAN D.G. Vs. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - MFA.No.3499/2015 c/w. MFA.No.5979/2015 disposed of on 30.01.2020. As such, she would contend that the findings of the Tribunal with regard to fastening of 50% liability on the insured of the motorcycle by exonerating the insurer of the motorcycle require to be set aside. She would also contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation under all the hands, as such, the same requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, she would pray for allowing of the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer would fairly concede that in view of the aforestated judgments, the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to make good the compensation. However, since 50% negligence is attributed on the rider of the motorcycle, 50% of the compensation shall be paid by the insurer of the motorcycle. He would also contend - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which does not require any enhancement. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Virupaksha's case supra has held at paragraph 8 as under: "From the above said section, it is clear that the defences open to the insurance company are only those mentioned under section 149(2) of the Act. The non- registration of the vehicle is not one of the defence enumerated under section 149(2) of the Act. Therefore, the insurance company is not entitled to take defence of the non-registration of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Further, the grounds of defences have been specified in section 149(2) of the Act and no other ground of defence can be added to the said section. Under sub-section (7) of section 149 of the Act, the insurance company is not entitled to avoid its liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any judgment and award referred to in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the view that there was no registration of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. When such being the case, the insurance company shall not be allowed to raise the defence of non-registration as it falls outside the scope of section 149(2) of the Act in this appeal." - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 9. Similarly, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.3872/2012 disposed of on 24.09.2013 in paragraph 8 has observed as under: "Once registration is granted, it enures to the benefit of the owner/insurer of the offending vehicle. Until and unless it is positively cancelled by the registering authority insurer cannot contend that it is not liable to indemnify the claim. The words used in Section 39 of the MV Act would fortify this view namely after the words "Vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter". The legislature has conveniently used the word 'and' instead of 'or' and after the said words, it has been inserted that the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled which implies that until and unless it is suspended or cancelled it would not be permissible for the insurer to contend that for want of registration certificate being valid, insurer need not indemnify the claim." 10. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.1245/2010 disposed of on 06.12.2010 referring to the judgment Virupaksha's case supra has held that non- registration of a vehicle for a very short period itself is not fatal to the claim. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 11. In light of the judgments referred to above, it is clear that non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences available to the Insurance Company under Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act and thus, the insurer is not entitled to take the defence of non-registration of the vehicle as on the date of the accident, when the vehicle is covered with the policy of the insurance. 12. In view of the above, the findings of the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the insured of the motorcycle is untenable. Accordingly, the said finding is modified and held that the insurer of the motorcycle is liable to make good 50% of the compensation and 50% of the compensation shall be paid by the insurer of the offending vehicle. 13. As far as award of compensation is concerned, in order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.8,000/- As there is no credible evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016 would be Rs.9,500/-. 14. Since the deceased was aged 28 years and was self- employed, 40% requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.13,300/-. 15. Since there are three dependents, 1/3rd requires to be deducted towards personal expenses, which makes his monthly income to be Rs.8,867/-. The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.8,867/-. 16. As the deceased was aged 28 years, a multiplier of '17' would have to be applied. 17. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,08,868/- (Rs.8,867/- x 12 x 17) towards “loss of dependency”. 18. The claimants, being the wife and children, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 i.e., in all Rs.1,45,200/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 19. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 18,08,868 2. Loss of Consortium 1,45,200 3. Conventional Heads 36,300 Total 19,90,368 20. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.19,90,368/- as against Rs.11,57,932/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 21. The insurer of the offending vehicle and the insurer of the motorcycle are directed to deposit 50% each of the amount of compensation awarded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 22. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010005212021 NC: 2026:KHC:38505 MFA No. 2575 of 2022 The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40