- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 2580 OF 2023 (MV-I) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION No. 63 OF 2024 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2580/2023 BETWEEN: M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KUNDAPURA II FLOOR, SRI SAI CENTRE MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA TALUK REGIONAL OFFICE SITUATE AT No.144 2ND FLOOR, SHUBRAM COMPLEX M .G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY REKHA S MENON. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GEETHA R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. CHANDRA VASU MOGAVEERA S/O VASU MOGAVEERA AGED ABOUT 32 YARS RESIDING AT UGRANIMANE Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 MARAVANTHE VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. MR. UMESH S/O BHASKARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR CHITTUR PRIMARY SCHOOL CHITTUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. 3. MR. VIJAYAKRISHNA SHETTY S/O SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI VIJAYA HESINAKATTEMANE HAKLADY VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2-UMESH SERVED, R3 – VIJAYAKRISHNA SHETTY SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.1133/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.60,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. IN MFA.CROB No. 63/2024 BETWEEN: SRI CHANDRA VASU MOGAVEERA S/O. VASU MOGAVEERA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O UGRANIMANE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 MARAVANTHE VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 214. ...CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. UMESH S/O BHASKARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR CHITTUR PRIMARY SCHOOL CHITTUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201. 2. MR. VIJAYAKRISHNA SHETTY S/O SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI VIJAYA HESINAKATTEMANE HAKLADY VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA II FLOOR, SRI SAI CENTRE MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GEETHA R, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R2-VIJAYAKRISHNA SHETTY, SERVED, V/O DTD. 09.04.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT R1-UMESH) THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.1133/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CALIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA AND MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT MFA No.2580/2023 is filed by the appellant -insurer challenging the liability to pay compensation and MFA Crob.No.63/2024 is filed by respondent No.1 –claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 07.09.2022 passed in MVC No.1133/2018 by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapur. 2. Even though the appeal and cross-objections are listed today for admission, they are taken up for disposal with consent of learned counsels appearing for parties. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 3. Respondent No.1 -claimant has made a claim petition praying to award compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 11.05.2018, contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent of the driving of the driver of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-20/B-7161. The Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties and appreciating evidence on record has assessed the compensation and awarded global compensation Rs.60,000/- with interest at rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed appellant– insurer to pay the award amount with interest. The insurer has filed appeal challenging the liability saddled on it and cross objector has filed cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant -insurer and learned counsel for respondent No.1– claimant –cross objector. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 - owner of the vehicle remained absent and unrepresented. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the appellant -insurer would contend that there is a clear finding by the Tribunal that the insured vehicle was not having valid permit as on the date of the accident and in spite of that the liability has been saddled on the insurer. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amrith Paul Singh and another Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., and others1 would contend that if there is no permit, then there is a violation of policy conditions, the order to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle has to be passed. With these, she prays to allow the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 –claimant –cross objector would contend that the compensation awarded globally in a sum of Rs.60,000/- is on lower side. The claimant has sustained fracture of radius lower end. He was admitted in the hospital for 2 days. Considering 1 In (2018) 7 SCC 558 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 the said aspects, the compensation awarded is on lower side. With this, he prays to allow cross objections and enhancement of compensation. 7. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned judgment and award. 8. The following points arise for consideration: i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on the appellant -insurer to pay the compensation even though there is violation of policy conditions i.e, not having a valid permit? ii) Whether there are any grounds for enhancement of compensation? Reasons to Point No.1: The Tribunal while considering the liability has clearly held that the tipper – lorry is insurer with appellant was not having the valid permit and permit has expired on 30.09.2016. However, the insurance policy was issued on 16.02.2018 and the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 insurer has not insisted for any permit at the time of issuing of policy and the liability has been saddled on the insurer. One of the conditions while issuing a policy is that the vehicle should have valid permit. In the case on hand, as there is no valid permit as on the date of incident, there is a violation of policy conditions. In cases of violation of policy conditions, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for appellant in the case of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and g proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view a of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh and Lakhmi Chand in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 9. In cases where there is no valid permit as on the date of accident, the order is to be passed that insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. Therefore, the appellant - insurance company has to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 10. Reasons to Point No.2: Respondent No.1 - claimant has sustained 03 simple injuries and 01 fracture of radius lower end. The claimant has been admitted in hospital for 02 days. Ex.P12 to 26 indicate that claimant has incurred medical expenses of Rs.21,049/-. The Tribunal considering the said medical expenses and the injury sustained has awarded global compensation of Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal has not considered the loss of amenities and loss of income during laid up period. Considering the said aspects, the claimant is entitled to enhanced global compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered. 11. In view of the above, the following ORDER i) MFA No.2580/2023 filed by insurer is allowed in part. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 ii) The liability saddled on the appellant -insurer is modified and the appellant -insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.2. iii) MFA Crob.No.63/2024 filed by respondent No.1 – claimant is allowed in part. iv) Respondent No.1 -claimant is entitled to enhanced global compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till relisation. v) The appellant -insurer shall deposit said enhanced global compensation with interest before the Tribunal within a period of 06 weeks from this day. vi) Respondent No.1 -claimant is entitled to release entire enhanced compensation. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010200722023 NC: 2026:KHC:39162 MFA No. 2580 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 63 of 2024 vii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 Ct.sm