Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesh I M S/O Umapathayya vs Anjanappa H S/O Hanumappa on 23 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102873 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102872 OF 2016 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 102873/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH I M S/O I M JAYANNA
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRI.,
R/O: BHARAMASAGAR,
NOW R/AT KAMADOD VILLAGE,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI., ADV)
AND:
1. SRI. ANJANAPPA H S/O HANUMAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O: CHADARGOLLA IN JAGALUR,
TQ: DIST: DAVANAGERE-577528
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
MOHANKUMAR TP REGISTRATION NO.KA-17/2526)
B SHELAR
2. THE MANAGER, LEGAL CLAIMS
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PENINSULA CORPORATION PARK,
Location: NICHOLAS PIRMAL TOWER,
HIGH
COURT OF 9TH FLOOR, GANAPTHARAO KADAM MARG,
KARNATAKA LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013,
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KA-17/2526)
INSURANCE COVERNOTE NO.11957887.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.159/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 102872/2016
BETWEEN:
1. JAGADEESH I M S/O UMAPATHAYYA
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE &
BUSINESS, R/O: BHARAMASAGAR,
NOW R/AT KAMADOD VILLAGE,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADV)
AND:
1. SRI. ANJANAPPA H S/O HANUMAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O: CHADARGOLLA IN JAGALUR,
TQ: DIST: DAVANAGERE-577528
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
TP REGISTRATION NO.KA-17/2526)
2. THE MANAGER, LEGAL CLAIMS
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PENINSULA CORPORATION PARK,
NICHOLAS PIRMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR,
GANAPTHARAO KADAM MARG,
LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013,
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KA-17/2526)
INSURANCE COVERNOTE NO.11957887
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.07.2016 PASSED IN
MVC NO.158/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINICPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORA JUDGMENT
1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment
and award dated 13.07.2016 passed in MVC
Nos.158 of 2014 and 159 of 2014 by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Ranebennur (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals
are as follows:
3. The petitioners were proceeding on their motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-16/S-1492 at Bilichoda
road, a Maxima Goods Vehicle bearing TP
registration No.KA-17/2526 came in a high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner and collided to
the motorcycle of the petitioners. As a result, they
sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on
account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident.
4. The owner of the offending vehicle appeared
through the counsel but did not file a statement of
objections.
5. The insurance company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition and contended that the vehicle is Maxima
goods vehicle bearing TP registration No.KA-
17/2526 was a commercial vehicle and had a
package policy valid from 01.01.2013 to 21.12.2013
and it is contended that as of the date of accident,
the registration of the said vehicle had expired.
Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition
against the insurance company.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
6. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties
framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioners to substantiate their case, examined
themselves as PW-1 and PW-2, examined the doctor
as PW-3 and marked 35 documents as Exhibits P-1
to P-35.
8. The insurance company has examined the Senior
Executive Claims (Legal) Officer as RW-1 and also
examined the First Division Assistant of the Regional
Transport Office, Bengaluru, as RW-2 and marked
twelve documents as Exhibits R-1 and R-12.
9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions
in part and awarded a compensation of ₹6,58,713/-
in MVC No.158 of 2014 and ₹2,36,921/- in MVC
No.159 of 2014 and dismissed the claim petitions
against the insurance company and directed the
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the
compensation amount.
10. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and awards filed these appeals.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
also the learned counsel for the insurance company.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim
petitions against the insurance company of the
offending vehicle. He submits that as of the date of
accident, the insurance policy was valid. He submits
that the insurance company has collected the
premium for one year. However, the Tribunal
without considering the said aspect has committed
an error in dismissing the claim petitions against the
insurance company, only on the ground that the
registration certificate of the offending vehicle had
expired as of the date of accident. He submits that
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the
liability on the owner.
13. He also submits that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the appeals.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance
company submits that as of the date of accident,
the registration certificate of the offending vehicle
was not in force and had expired. Thus, there is a
violation of policy conditions. Thus, the insurance
company is not liable to pay the compensation as
claimed by the petitioners. He submits that the
Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim
petitions against the insurance company. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals.
15. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
16. The points that would arise for consideration are
the liability and the quantum of compensation.
17. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
accident and the petitioners have sustained grievous
injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioners
to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligence driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle, produced copy of the charge sheet marked
as Exhibit P-1. From the perusal of Ex.P-1, it is clear
that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle.
18. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits
that as of the date of accident, the offending vehicle
was not duly registered with the insurance company
and the temporary registration certificate had
expired. However, the certificate of insurance was in
force and the insurance company while issuing the
certificate of insurance was aware that the insured
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
vehicle had a registration certificate for only 30
days. If it was the intention of the insurance
company to cover the risk of the vehicle during the
registration certificate, the insurance company
should have issued the policy covering the risk of
the vehicle till the date of expiry of the registration
certificate and it should have specifically stated in
the certificate that the insurance policy would be in
effect as long as the registration certificate of the
vehicle is current.
19. The insurance company, having received the
premium for the whole year, now, it cannot contend
that it is not liable to pay the compensation, more
particularly, when the claim is made by the third
party. The Tribunal committed an error in
dismissing the claim petitions against the insurance
company.
20. As on the date of accident, the offending vehicle
was insured with the insurance company. As such,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
the insurance company is liable to indemnify the
owner against the third party.
21. The owner and insurance company of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount. The judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal to the extent of fastening
the liability is liable to be set aside.
Further, the insurance company is entitled to avoid
the liability only if the conditions specified under
Section 149(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
are breached. Non-registration of the offending
vehicle is not a condition specified in Section
149(2)(a) of the Act. Hence, on these grounds, the
dismissal of claim petitions against the insurance
company is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
point for consideration regarding the liability is
answered.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
Reg.Quantum:
22. As far as the quantum of compensation in MFA
No.102872 of 2016, the petitioner was aged about
50 years as of the date of accident and to prove
that the petitioner has suffered a permanent
disability, examined the doctor as PW-3, who has
issued a disability certificate marked as Exhibit P-17
and the petitioner was admitted as an in-patient for
93 days. PW-3 has opined that the petitioner has
suffered a permanent disability to the extent of
70%, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the
disability at 23.3%.
23. Admittedly, PW-3 is not the treated doctor. As such,
the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 1/3rd of
the disability as assessed by PW-3. In my
considered opinion, this assessment of disability by
the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for
interference.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
24. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of
₹6,58,713/-.
25. The petitioner, to prove his income, has not
produced any credible proof of income. In the
absence of income proof, this Court has taken the
income as per the schedule notified by the
Karnataka Legal Services Authority, according to
which, for the accident date of the year 2013, the
income is assessed at ₹7,000/- per month.
26. The petitioner was aged about 50 years. The
multiplier applicable to the age group of the
petitioner is "13".
27. Considering the entire evidence on record, this
Court re-assesses the compensation under the
following heads:
Compensation awarded in Rs.
Sl.
Heads of compensation By the By this
No.
Tribunal Court
1 Pain and suffering 52,000/- 60,000/-
2 Medical expenses 3,05,625/- 3,05,625/-
3 Diet, food and nourishment 15,000/- 25,000/-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
charges
4 Loss of earning during
18,000/- 21,000/-
treatment period
5 Loss of future earnings 2,18,088/- 2,54,436/-
(6,000/- x 12 x (7,000/- x 12 x
23.3% x 13) 23.3% x 13)
6 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/-
Total : 6,58,713/- 7,16,061/-
Compensation enhanced by: 57,348/-
28. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to a total
compensation of ₹7,16,061/-, as against
₹6,58,713/-. Hence, the enhancement of
compensation is ₹57,348/-.
In MFA No.102873 of 2016:
29. In this case, the petitioner was aged about 31 years
as of the date of accident. The petitioner to prove
the income has not produced any credible proof of
income. In the absence of income proof, this Court
has taken the income as per the schedule notified
by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority. The
accident was of the year 2013 and as such, the
income is taken at ₹7,000/- per month as per the
schedule.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
30. The petitioner to prove the disability examined the
doctor as PW-3. He has opined that the petitioner
has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of
25%, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the
disability at 8.3% which, in my considered view, is
just and proper. The multiplier applicable to the
age group of the petitioner is "16".
31. Considering the evidence of PW-3 and other medical
records, this Court re-assessed the compensation
under the following heads:
Compensation awarded in Rs.
Sl.
Heads of compensation By the By this
No.
Tribunal Court
1 Pain and suffering 16,000/- 30,000/-
2 Medical expenses 47,305/- 47,305/-
3
4 Diet, food and nourishment
10,000/- 25,000/-
charges
5 Loss of earning during
18,000/- 21,000/-
treatment period
6 Loss of future earnings 95,616/- 1,11,552/-
(6,000/- x 12 x (7,000/- x 12 x
8.3% x 16) 8.3% x 16)
7 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/-
Total : 2,36,921/- 2,84,857/-
Compensation enhanced by: 47,936/-
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
MFA No. 102873 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 102872 of 2016
HC-KAR
32. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to a total
compensation of ₹2,84,857/- as against ₹2,36,921/-
Hence, the enhancement of compensation is
₹47,936/-.
33. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
(I) The Miscellaneous First Appeals are
allowed in part.
(II) The judgments and awards passed
by the tribunal are modified.
(III) The petitioner in MVC No.158 of
2014 is entitled for a total
compensation of ₹7,16,061 as
against ₹6,58,713/-. The petitioner
is entitled for enhanced
compensation of ₹57,348/-.
(IV) The petitioner in MVC No.159 of
2014 is entitled for a total
compensation of ₹2,84,857/- as
against ₹2,36,921/-. The petitioner
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12911
HC-KAR
is entitled for enhanced
compensation of ₹47,936/-.
(V) The petitioners are entitled for
aforesaid compensation with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till realisation.
(VI) The respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay the
compensation amount.
(VII) The insurance company is directed to
deposit the entire compensation
amount with accrued interest within
8 weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment.
(VIII) The Registry is directed to transfer
the trial court records to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
