Partly allowed

S Nataraju v. Sukumara M

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025MFA/5629/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an insurance company cannot avoid liability by claiming the vehicle was unregistered; it must pay compensation and recover from the owner if policy was violated. The court enhanced compensation to Rs.30,52,300 based on KSLSA circular income. Relief: Partially allowed appeal.

What did the court decide?

Modified compensation of Rs.30,52,300 awarded to claimants with interest; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount and allowed liberty to recover from owner.

S Nataraju Vs Sukumara M — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5629 OF 2021(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S NATARAJU, S/O SHIVARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶11

PRAJWAL N, S/O S NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

¶12

MOULYA N, D/O S NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BANGARAMMA, W/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶15

APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1^ST APPELLANT

¶16

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1158, 3^RD CROSS, SAHUKUR CHENNAIAH ROAD, JANATHA NAGAR, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570009.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K,ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

SUKUMARA M, S/O MURUGESH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.69, BHOGADI ROAD, KUDERUMALA MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU - 570006.

¶23

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE -II, NO.1 SRINIVASA PLAZA, ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU - 570023.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT 28.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.594/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

Heard Sri.Shantharaj K., the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶34

Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 has remained unrepresented. Therefore, respondent No.1 is placed exparte in this appeal.

¶35

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.01.2020 passed by learned III Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in MVC No.594/2019.

¶36

Deceased H.M.Latha died in an accident on 13.01.2019 while she was walking as pedestrian on Sahukar Chennaiah Road because of the accident caused by the rider of the motorcycle bearing Engine No.HA10ACJHJ62075 and Chasis No.MBLHAR181JHJ29070. It was a new motorcycle and the same was insured by the second respondent-Insurance Company but not registered at the time of accident.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The Insurance Company raised objection of

¶41

awarding any compensation against the Insurance Company in view of non-registration of the vehicle having driven by its owner which was involved in the accident.

¶42

Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶43

(i) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the unregistered Hero Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Engine No.HA10ACJHJ62075 and Chasis No.MBLHAR181JHJ29070 by its rider?

¶44

(ii) Whether the petitioners further prove that, as a result of the said accident, deceased H M Latha sustained injuries and died?

¶45

(iii) Whether the 2^nd respondent proves that, the rider of the unregistered Hero Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Engine No.HA10ACJHJ62075 and Chasis No.MBLHAR181JHJ29070 was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident?

¶46

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation and if so, how much and from whom?

¶47

(v) What order?

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Having considered the submissions of the respective

¶52

counsel, the two issues involved in the present appeal are-

¶53

(a) Whether as the offending vehicle was driven without being registered, though it was insured with the second respondent, the Insurance Company should be made to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle as per the Judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Yallavva and Another¹ .

¶54

(b) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶55

Sri.Shantharaj K., the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the facts are not in dispute that the insured vehicle was not registered on the date of accident and the deceased had died on 13.01.2019 because of the accident. He therefore submits that in view of the judgment in the case of Yallavva supra the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle if it is of the

¶56

1 ILR 2020 KAR 2239

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

opinion that the offending vehicle was driven in violation of the insurance policy.

¶60

The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the income as Rs.9,500/- of the deceased instead of Rs.14,000/- as per the Circular issued by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority (for short 'KSLSA').

¶61

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned award is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the insurance policy, the offending vehicle ought not to have been driven on the public road without it having been registered by registering authority as per the provisions of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') which specifically provides that no motor vehicle shall be driven on the public road without being registered.

¶62

In respect of income, there is no much objection. As per the circular issued by KSLSA, income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- as the accident is of the year 2019.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

It is stated that there are altogether four dependents. Therefore, 1/4^th has to be deducted from the notional income.

¶67

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶68

There is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and the death of the deceased because of that accident. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured, but not registered.

¶69

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Insurance Company if it is of the opinion that the vehicle was driven in violation of the insurance policy, under Section 39 of the Act of 1988, this will not absolve the Insurance Company from payment of compensation. However, the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle if it is of the opinion that the offending vehicle was driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy.

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Therefore, we give liberty to the Insurance Company to make its claim for recovering the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, if it is of the opinion that the offending vehicle ought not to have been driven on public road in violation of the insurance policy.

¶73

Insofar as the question of quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the Circular of KSLSA referred to above, the notional income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.14,000/-.

¶74

In view of the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others² , 40% requires to be added to the notional income towards future prospects, which makes the income of the deceased to be Rs.19,600/- (Rs.14,000+40%). The claimants, being the husband, children and mother-in-law of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium. In addition, they are also entitled to Rs.36,300/under conventional heads.

¶75

2 ( 2017) 16 SCC 680

¶76

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Since there are four dependents, 1/4^th requires to be deducted from the notional income of the deceased towards living expenses, which makes the income of the deceased to Rs.14,700/- (Rs.19,600 - 1/4).

¶79

Since the age of the deceased was 33 years as on the date of the accident, the multiplier to be adopted is "16".

¶80

Thus, the compensation awarded to the claimants is

¶81

reassessed as under:

¶82

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency (14,700x12x16)	28,22,400.00
2.	Loss of consortium (48,400x 4)	1,93,600.00
3.	Conventional head	36,300.00
		30,52,300.00

¶83

The claimants are entitled for the modified compensation of Rs.30,52,300/- as against Rs.17,72,464/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment made to them in pursuance of the modified award.

¶84

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42527-DB MFA No. 5629 of 2021

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment may file appropriate proceeding to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle if it is of the opinion that offending vehicle was driven in violation of the contract of insurance. We make it clear that we have not rendered any opinion on such a claim by the Insurance Company.

¶87