Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Shri N S Vishwanath on 25 October, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 3530 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3530 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
I ST FLOOR, UPSTAIRS-KAMAT CAFE,
NEAR BASAVA VENUS,
COTTON MARKET,
PRABHAT COLONY,
PB ROAD,
HUBLI-580 029.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
NO.144, M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI N S VISHWANATH
@ VISHWANATH GOWDA,
SON OF SHRI SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.53, 5TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN,
AGARA-HSR LAYOUT, I ST SECTOR,
BANGALORE-560 102 AND
AT OFFICE NO. 102,
16TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN,
LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION,
WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 030.
-2-
MFA No. 3530 of 2016
2. THE DIRECTOR
M/S. NAVEEN HOTELS LIMITED,
NO.604/B, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI-580 029.
3. SHRI K. RATHNAKAR SHETTY
SON OF SHRI. HERIYANNA SHETTY,
AGED 45 YEARS,
C/O. RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,
JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MURALI M, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI K.V.SATHISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI A.KUMARAVEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2016
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL -7/IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE/XXXIV ADDL.
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AND TO
DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 09.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
MFA No. 3530 of 2016
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") to set aside the judgment and award dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-7/IX Addl. Small Causes Judge/XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and to dismiss the claim petition as against the appellant.
2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner before the Tribunal and respondents No.2 and 3 herein are the respondents No.2 and 3 before the Tribunal.
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3. On 22.11.2013 at about 8:30 p.m., the claimant, who was a Lawyer by profession, after attending Court -4- MFA No. 3530 of 2016 work, was waiting at a traffic signal at Garebavipalya Junction on Hosur Road on his motorbike bearing registration No.KA-51-EC-9597. At that time, a Tata Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-25-C-1934, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant was thrown approximately 10 feet and fell on the road median, sustaining grievous injuries.
4. Subsequently, the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a., asserting that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the lorry driver. The respondent No.2 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. The respondents No.1 and 3, in their objections, admitted that the vehicle was insured but denied liability on the ground that the lorry did not possess a valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident. They also contended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant.
-5-MFA No. 3530 of 2016
5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimant was examined as PW1, along with PW2-Sri Nagesh and PW3-Dr.S. Ramachandra. Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 were marked on behalf of claimant. On behalf of the respondents, one Shivakumar was examined as RW1 and marked documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
6. By Judgment and Award dated 21.03.2016, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the negligent, rash and drunken driving of the tipper lorry which did not have valid fitness certificate and awarded compensation of Rs.7,32,559/- with interest at 8% p.a.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company that the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's income at Rs.12,000/- per month without any documentary evidence. During the cross- examination, the claimant has adduced that he was earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. This undermines any claim of diminished earning capacity and -6- MFA No. 3530 of 2016 renders the award under "loss of future income" wholly unjustified. Further the claimant, being a practicing advocate, continues to perform his professional duties as before the date of accident. The medical evidence indicates that the fractures have fully united and do not impair his ability to earn. Hence, the compensation awarded under the heads of permanent disability and future loss of income, is not proper and sought for enhancement under these heads.
8. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening 80% liability to the appellant-Insurance Company, despite evidence that the accident was caused due to drunken driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and that the lorry was on the road without a valid fitness certificate, which is a statutory requirement under Sections 56 and 192 of the MV Act. The Police had charge- sheeted the vehicle owner under Sections 199, 56, and 192 of the MV Act, establishing clear violations. The absence of a valid fitness certificate renders the insurance coverage void and the Insurer should have been absolved -7- MFA No. 3530 of 2016 of the liability. The Tribunal ought to have fastened full liability on the owner and driver of the lorry.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced, perused the material on record and memo filed by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant along the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was challenged in appeal in MFA No.4213/2016, which came up before the Division Bench of this Court. The sole issue for determination was the quantum of compensation. PW3- Dr.S.Ramachandra, had assessed the claimant's permanent disability at 18.39%, but the Tribunal, without assigning valid reasons, had taken 10% disability. The Division Bench of this Court has rightly reassessed the permanent disability at 19%.
11. The claimant was 28 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal, taking the monthly income of the -8- MFA No. 3530 of 2016 claimant as Rs.12,000/-, and applying the multiplier of 17 as per the case of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, awarded Rs.4,65,120/- (Rs.12,000 x 19/100 x 12 x 17) towards loss of future income. The Division Bench of this Court, enhanced the sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities and awarded Rs.30,000/- in view of the injuries. The amounts of Rs.3,000/- each awarded for attendant charges, food, and nourishment were also found inadequate and enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each.
12. Thus, the total enhanced compensation amounted to Rs.2,64,320/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition until realization. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tribunal was modified to that extent and the appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court.
13. In view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.4213/2016 enhancing the -9- MFA No. 3530 of 2016 compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only issue before this Court is regarding the liability of the appellant- Insurance Company. Upon careful perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the lorry involved in the accident did not possess a valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident, which constitutes breach of statutory and policy conditions under Section 56 of the MV Act.
14. However, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, it is well settled that mere absence of a fitness certificate does not absolve the insurer of liability vis-à-vis third-party claimants. The insurer shall pay the compensation at first instance and be permitted to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle after discharging its liability towards the third party.
15. As regards the allegation of drunken driving, no conclusive evidence has been placed on record to establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the
- 10 -
MFA No. 3530 of 2016time of the accident. Therefore, applying the doctrine of "pay and recover" as laid down in Swaran Singh's case supra, the following order is passed:
The appellant-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award amount to the claimant as ordered by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.4213/2016, and is granted liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV