- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2712 OF 2016(MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3467 OF 2016(MV-D) MFA NO.2712/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SMT.RAJESWARI W/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. KUM.SANGEETHA D/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 3. KUM.SHILPA D/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS 4. KUM.SWETHA D/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, REP BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 ALL ARE R/A NO.15, ABBANNA BUILDING, BILEKAHALLI, BOMMANAHALLI, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI N R NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SANJEEVAPPA NO.303, 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. 2. MAGMA HDI GEN. INS. CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, HMJ.C. ROAD, 36, J.C. ROAD, NEAR MINERVA CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR (VC) SRI D.P.ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2] THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.15 PASSED IN MVC NO.4912/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 28TH ACMM, BENGLAURU & C/C OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 26TH ACMM, BENGLAURU, PARTLY ALLOWING - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MFA NO.3467/2016: BETWEEN: SRI SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O PAPANNA NO.303, 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …APPELLANT [BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR (VC) SRI D.P.ASHOK, ADVOCATE] AND: 1. SMT.RAJESWARI W/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. KUM.SANGEETHA D/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 3. KUM.SHILPA D/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS 4. KUM.SWETHA D/O LATE MAGURAM @ MAGURAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 SINCE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, REP BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.15, ABBANNA BUILDING, BILEKAHALLI, BOMMANAHALLI, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076. 5. MAGMA HDI GENERAL INS. CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, HMJC ROAD, 36, J.C.ROAD, NEAR MINERVA CIRCLE, BENGALURU -560 002. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI N R NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP BY R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5] THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.15 PASSED IN MVC NO.4912/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 28TH ACMM, BENGLAURU & C/C OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 26TH ACMM (SCCH-9), BENGLAURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.11,27,600/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 11.11.2015 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-9) ('Tribunal'), in MVC no.4912/2014, these appeals are filed. 2. MFA no.2712/2016 is filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation, while MFA no.3467/2016 is filed by owner challenging finding on liability. 3. Brief facts leading to these appeals as per claimants are that at 7:00 a.m. on 28.08.2014 when driver of Water Tanker no.KA-05/AA-9148 suddenly drove it in reverse gear, it dashed against Maguram Naik, a pedestrian, due to which, he sustained severe injuries and died on spot. Alleging loss of dependency on account of his sudden death, his wife and three minor daughters filed claim petition in MVC no.4912/2014 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act') against owner and insurer of water tanker. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 4. Claim petition was opposed on all grounds including alleging absence of negligence, violation of policy condition and insurer seeking for avoidance of liability on ground that as on date of accident, vehicle did not have fitness certificate or permit. 5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following: ISSUES 1. Whether the petitioners prove that the death of Muguram @ Maguram Naik in the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Water Tanker bearing registration No.KA- 05-AA-9148 that took place on 9th Main Road, Bilekahalli, Vijaya Bank Layout, at New Kabab Zone, Bangalore on 28.08.2014 at about 7:00 a.m.? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so how much from whom? 3. What Order? 6. In trial, claimant no.1 examined herself and one eye-witness as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked as Exs.P1 to P12. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and officials of RTO as RWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.R1 to R8. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 7. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver and claimants were entitled for compensation, assessed by it at Rs.11,27,600/-. But on ground that vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and permit, it absolved liability of insurer and held owner of vehicle liable to pay compensation. Dissatisfied with quantum, claimants were in appeal for enhancement, while owner was challenging finding on liability. 8. Sri Prakasha M., learned counsel appearing for Sri N.R. Naik, advocate for appellants submitted that MFA no.2712/2016 was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that as on date of accident, Maguram Naik (deceased) was 44 years of age working as a tailor and earning Rs.14,750/- per month. Without any justification, Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.7,000/- which was on lower side. Tribunal added future prospects at 25% and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of '14' correctly. It was - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 submitted that compensation awarded under other heads was also on lower side and sought enhancement. 9. Sri Mohan Kumar B.M., learned counsel appearing for Sri D.P. Ashok, advocate for appellant submitted that MFA no.3467/2016 was by owner challenging finding of Tribunal on liability. It was submitted, only reason assigned by Tribunal for absolving liability of insurer and fastening it on owner was that by referring to Exs.R6, R7 and deposition of RWs.2 and 3 that vehicle had fitness certificate from 22.12.2014 to 21.12.2015 and permit was from 22.12.2014 to 21.12.2019 and since accident had occurred on 28.08.2014, it was held that accident had occurred when vehicle did not have fitness certificate and permit. It was submitted that same would be contrary to material on record. It was submitted that when Ex.R3 indicated date of registration of vehicle as 13.11.2009, statement in Ex.R8 that fitness was valid upto 14.11.2009 i.e. one day after date of registration would appear erroneous. Consequently causing doubt about deposition of RWs.2 and 3. On said ground sought for allowing owner's appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 10. On other hand, Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for insurer would oppose both appeals. It was submitted that RWs.2 and 3 by referring to Exs.R3 to R8 had rightly deposed that vehicle was having permit from 22.12.2014 to 21.12.2019 and there was no fitness certificate as on date of accident which was on 28.08.2014. Therefore, finding of Tribunal did not warrant interference. 11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record. 12. Since appeals are by owner challenging finding on liability and claimants on quantum, points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether Tribunal was justified in absolving insurer from liability? (2) Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Point no.1: 13. While passing impugned award, only reason assigned by Tribunal for fastening liability on owner instead of - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 insurer is that as on date of accident i.e. 28.08.2014 vehicle in question did not have fitness certificate and permit. Though, RWs.2 and 3 have deposed by referring to Exs.R2 to R8 that fitness certificate of vehicle was valid from 22.12.2014 to 21.12.2015 and permit from 22.12.2014 to 21.12.2019, which would be period after date of accident, careful perusal of Ex.R3 at Column no.27 would read as follows: "Registration/fitness validity 21.12.2015" 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh and Anr. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 has held even in case of violation of permit condition, insurer cannot escape liability in respect of third parties and at best would be entitled to recover compensation from owner and driver. Further, Division Bench of this Court in MFA no.5993/2015 [2020:KHC:26201/DB] has held in a case where registration certificate once issued and not cancelled, insurer cannot escape liability. In view of above, point no.1 for consideration will have to be answered in negative. However, on account of plying of vehicle without permit, though insurer cannot be held finally - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 liable, insurer would require to pay compensation to claimants in first place and thereafter recover it from insured/driver without need to file separate proceedings. Challenge on ground of absence of fitness certificate is rejected. Point no.2: 15. On quantum though claimants stated that deceased was 44 years of age, working as tailor and earning Rs.14,750/-, there is no material to substantiate income. In absence Tribunal assessed it notionally. But, notional income for year 2014 at Rs.8,500/- has to be considered. There is no dispute about addition of future prospects at 20%, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses and application of multiplier of '14'. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.13,38,750/-. 16. Apart from above each of claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium i.e. Rs.40,000/- X 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-. They would also be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, in total i.e. Rs.1,90,000/-. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 17. As per decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% has to be added to compensation under conventional heads once every 3 years. Since more than 6 years have lapsed after decision, 20% has to be added to award under conventional heads i.e. Rs.38,000/-. Thus, claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,66,750/-. Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative as above. 18. Consequently, following: ORDER i) MFA no.2712/2016 is allowed in part. Claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,66,750/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit. ii) MFA no.3467/2016 is allowed in part. Insurer is held liable to pay compensation to claimants in first place and thereafter recover it from insured/driver without recourse to separate proceedings. iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010271572016 NC: 2026:KHC:54204 MFA No. 2712 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 3467 of 2016 iv) On deposit, direction issued by Tribunal towards apportionment shall apply to enhanced compensation proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD,YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17