Dismissed¶60

The Divisional Manager v. Kumar Amrut S/O Ishwar Marathe

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2025MFA/100453/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company liability; expired temporary registration of vehicle; policy condition violation; premium collected for full one year; third party claim; certificate of insurance in force; joint and several liability of owner and insurer; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act claim; appeal under Sec.173(1) MV Act; Addl. MACT Hukkeri; MVC No.2399/2013; motorcycle KA-22/TEM/7523; grievous injuries to minor pedestrian; National Insurance Company Ltd.; MFA No.100453 of 2015; Karnataka High Court Dharwad; Ashok S. Kinagi; award Rs.1,15,833/- with 7% interest; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; Miscellaneous First Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs, and the office directed to transfer the amount in deposit and transmit the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith. ¶60

The Divisional Manager Vs Kumar Amrut S/O Ishwar… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation where the offending vehicle was not duly registered (temporary registration expired) on the date of the accident, and whether the Tribunal erred in fastening liability jointly and severally on the owner and the insurer.

¶47

Court's answer

Admittedly the vehicle was only temporarily registered; as of the date of accident it was not duly registered and the temporary registration certificate had expired, yet the policy of insurance was in force. The insurer issued the certificate of insurance knowing the registration ran for only 30 days; if it intended to cover risk only during the currency of the registration, it should have issued the policy accordingly and expressly stated in the certificate that cover would subsist only as long as the registration certificate was current.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The insurance company, having received premium for the whole one year, cannot contend that it is not liable to pay the compensation, more particularly when the claim is made by a third party.

¶53

Key takeaways

The Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on both the owner and the insurance company; this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (MV) No.100453 of 2015, decided 28.08.2025 by Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench). The insurer (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) appealed against the Addl. MACT, Hukkeri award of 01.10.2014 in MVC No.2399/2013 granting Rs.1,15,833/- with 7% p.a. interest to a minor pedestrian (Kumar Amrut) injured on 28.09.2013 when motorcycle KA-22/TEM-7523, ridden rashly and negligently, dashed him. The insurer contended the vehicle was not duly registered on the accident date, constituting violation of policy conditions, and objected to joint and several liability. Held: although the temporary registration had expired, the certificate of insurance was in force; the insurer, having issued cover knowing the registration was valid only 30 days and having collected premium for the whole year, cannot repudiate liability to a third-party claimant for expiry of the temporary registration absent an express stipulation tying cover to the currency of registration. Liability as fixed by the Tribunal on both owner and insurer upheld; no error found in the impugned judgment. Appeal dismissed; no costs; deposit to be transferred and Trial Court Records transmitted to the Tribunal. Petitioner remained unrepresented despite notice.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10875 MFA No. 100453 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100453 OF 2015 (MV-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM (INSURER OF ABOVE SAID VEHICLE) RPTD. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. SHARMILA M PATIL, ADV)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KUMAR AMRUT S/O ISHWAR MARATHE AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN FATHER., SHRI. ISHWAR GANGARAM MARATHE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. ARJUNWAD, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:28 +0530

¶14

SRI. KEMPANNA MALLAPPA CHOUGALA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-22/TEM/7523 AND CHASIS NO.MBLHA11EW44262)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1998 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.2399/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUKKERI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,15,833/- ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALISATION.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10875 MFA No. 100453 of 2015

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶24

This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 01.10.2014 passed in MVC No.2399 of 2013 by the Addl. MACT, Hukkeri (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶25

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶26

On 28.09.2013 at about 01.00 p.m., when the petitioner was standing in front of his house, at that time, a motorcycle bearing temporary registration No.KA-22/TEM-7523 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the petitioner. As a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, and he spent huge amount towards the medical and other expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10875 MFA No. 100453 of 2015

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation.

¶30

The owner of the motorcycle appeared through the counsel but did not file a statement of objections.

¶31

The insurance company of the motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the offending vehicle was not duly registered as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶32

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶33

The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined the guardian of the petitioner as PW-1, examined one more witness as PW-2 and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-15. On the other hand the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10875 MFA No. 100453 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

respondents did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence.

¶37

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of ₹1,15,833/- with interest at the rate of 7% and directed the insurance company of the motorcycle to deposit the compensation amount.

¶38

The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶39

Despite service of notice to the petitioner, the petitioner remained unrepresented.

¶40

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶41

The Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as of the date of the accident, the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10875 MFA No. 100453 of 2015

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

offending vehicle was not registered, as such, there is

¶45

a violation of the policy condition. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. She submits that, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability jointly and severally. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶46

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶47

The point that arises for consideration is regarding the liability.

¶48

There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained the grievous injuries and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/TEM-7523.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10875 MFA No. 100453 of 2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Admittedly, the said vehicle was temporarily registered. As of the date of accident, the vehicle was not duly registered and the temporary registration certificate had also expired. However, the policy of insurance certificate was in force. The insurance company, while issuing the certificate of insurance was aware that the insured vehicle had a registration certificate only for a period of 30 days. If it was the intention of the insurance company to cover the risk of the vehicle during the currency of 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 been specifically stated in the certificate that the certificate of the insurance policy would in effect as long as the registration certificate of the vehicle is current.

¶53

The insurance company having received the premium for whole one year, cannot contend that it is not liable

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10875 MFA No. 100453 of 2015

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

to pay the compensation, more particularly, when the claim is made by a third party. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on both, the owner as well as the insurance company. Hence, I

¶57

do not find any error in the impugned judgment.

¶58