Karnataka High Court
Vrushibendra Alias Rushabendra Alias ... vs Sri Diwakar Babu D. S/O D. Lakshmipathi on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
MFA No. 102403 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MFA APPEAL NO.102403 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VRUSHIBENDRA @ RUSHABENDRA @ JRUSHAVENDRA
S/O. GIRIYA @ GIRAIAH, AGE 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & MILK VENDOR,
R/O. KORAMMA STREET, GOTUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI-583102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. DIWAKAR BABU D. S/O. D. LAKSHMIPATHI,
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: RIDER CUM OWNER OF THE
HERO SPLENDOR MOTOR CYCLE,
R/O. NEAR VEERA BRAHMAIAH SWAMY TEMPLE,
GOTUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583102.
Digitally signed 2. M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA BY ITS MANAGER, HALL MARK BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
PATTIHAL
Location: High DESAI CORSS, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
Court of
Karnataka, ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad Bench
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWAR A. DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AND FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL NO.V AND ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI IN M.V.C NO.1073/2019, DATED
06.03.2023, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
MFA No. 102403 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. This is a claimant's appeal against the judgment
and award dated 06.03.2023, passed in MVC No.1073/2019
by the MACT No.V and I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari
(for short "the Tribunal") seeking an enhancement of the
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 07.07.2019
at about 7:00 p.m., respondent No.1 was riding the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/TMP-798 and
claimant was a pillion rider going from Torangallu to Gotur.
Respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner, causing the motorcycle to fall into a
ditch on the road and caused the accident, resulting in
grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant contends
that he has incurred huge amount towards medical
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
expenses and he has been suffering from a permanent
disability. On these grounds, the claimant prayed to award
of compensation.
4. The respondents denied all the contentions of
the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
The respondents have also taken the contentions that as on
the date of accident the vehicle was not duly registered.
They submitted that the period of temporary registration
was from 15.04.2019 to 14.05.2019 and it was expired as
on the date of accident. Hence, owner of the vehicle has
violated terms and conditions of policy of insurance and
hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the
compensation.
5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and
recorded the evidence of both side. The Tribunal
appreciating pleadings and evidence on record, by the
impugned judgment and award, awarded compensation of
Rs.10,09,289/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and
directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
compensation and absolved the liability of the insurer to
pay compensation. on the ground of violation of the terms
and conditions of the policy of insurance i.e., not registering
of the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of M.V. Act.
The same is challenged by the appellant in the present
appeal.
6. During the pendency of this appeal, the
appellant has filed I.A. No.1/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27
of the CPC and produced a copy of the registration
certificated obtained from the concerned RTO Office at
Ballari.
7. Heard the arguments on main appeal as well on
I.A. No.1/2023 of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant as well the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently contends on the line with the grounds of appeal
as set out in the appeal memo. It is further contended that
the Tribunal had absolved the liability of the insurer solely
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
on the ground that the said vehicle was not registered as
on the date of accident and directed the owner of the
vehicle to pay the compensation. He further contends that
the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the
Tribunal and did not produce the registration certificate.
The claimant being unaware about these facts during the
trial of the matter. After passing of the impugned judgment
and award, the claimant approached respondent No.1 for
payment of compensation. At that time, respondent No.1
intimated him that the said vehicle was registered prior to
the date of accident on 01.07.2019 and thereafter the
claimant approached the concerned RTO to get the
certificate.
9. The claimant further contends that in view of
these reason he could not produce the registration
certificate before the Tribunal and he intends to produce
the said document before this Court, which is a material
document on behalf of the appellant. At the time of drafting
the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.1/2023 inadvertently
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
these fats are not stated. This is a petition filed under
Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and strict rule of law may not
be applicable to the Tribunal. With these reasons pryas to
take additional evidence on record. Considering the
contention of the claimant, I.A. No.1/2023 is allowed and
the document sought to be produced is taken on record. It
is certified copy of records of RT. Hence, it may be taken on
record.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
contends that all the while respondent No.2 was of the
opinion that the offending vehicle was not at all registered
permanent by respondent No.1. Earlier it had temporary
registration certificate. Permanent Registration particulars
of the said vehicle were not at all intimated to respondent
No.2 by respondent No.1. without registration plying of the
vehicle amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the
policy of insurance. Hence, respondent No.2 had been
fighting the case before the Tribunal that it was not liable to
pay compensation. The Tribunal after the trial held that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
said vehicle was not having permanent registration
certificate and hence absolved the liability of the Insurance
Company from payment of compensation. If I.A. No.1/2023
is allowed and the documents is taken on record, it will
seriously affects the rights of respondent No.2. the learned
advocate for respondent No.2 further contends that the
amount of compensation awarded is highly excessive. The
Tribunal directed the owner - respondent No.1 to pay
compensation. Hence, respondent No.2 did not bother
about the award. In this appeal, on the basis of additional
evidence, if this Court hold that respondent No.2 is liable to
pay the compensation awarded it cannot challenged the
amount awarded. In this appeal because respondent no.2
did not file any appeal.
11. Considered the contentions of both the parties.
The document produced by the appellant under I.A.
No.1/2023 is material document to fasten the liability of
insurer to satisfy the award. The Tribunal absolved the
liability of the insurer to pay the compensation only on the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
ground that the said vehicle was not having permanent
registration certificate as on the date of accident. The
document produced by the appellant along with the
application shows that the said vehicle was registered on
01.07.2019 and it is in force upto 30.06.2034.
Undisputedly, the accident had taken place on 07.07.2019
and as on that date, the registration certificate was in force.
In that event, respondent No.2 may be liable to pay the
compensation. In this appeal, respondent No.2 has no locus
standii to contest the appeal, since it was not made liable to
pay compensation. Owner of the vehicle has not filed any
appeal or appeared before this Court. After reconsidering of
additional evidence, if this Court directs the insurer to pay
compensation, respondent no.2 would loose an opportunity
to challenge the same before this Court. Respondent No.2
may not have an opportunity to contend before this Court
regarding the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, which according to its case is highly excessive and
disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the claimant.
Considering these facts, it is jut and necessary to remand
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
this matter to the Tribunal for deciding the case after taking
into consideration the document proposed to be produced
before this Court. Accordingly, the following order is
passed.
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) Application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of
the CPC is allowed and permitted the
appellant to produce the additional
document.
(iii) In view of the reasons stated above, the
judgment and award dated 06.03.2023,
passed in MVC No.1073/2019 by the MACT
No.V and I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari
is set aside. The matter is remanded to the
Tribunal to permit both parties to lead
additional evidence, if any, in additional to
the documents which is placed on record
before this Court and the Tribunal to hear
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5592
the matter afresh and dispose of the
petition in accordance with law.
(iv) Contentions of both parties are kept open
to be urged before the Tribunal.
(v) The Registry is directed to send back the
TCR to the Tribunal along with a copy of
this judgment and also I.A. No.1/2023 and
the documents produced along with this
appeal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
VNP /CT-AN
