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

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. 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

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

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

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

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 -

time 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.