Karnataka High Court
Shri. Basavaraj vs Renuka on 23 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012
MFA No. 102495 of 2015
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. 102495 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA KALABASHETTY,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE and
OWNER OF TRACTOR,
R/O: HALLIKERI, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKA
W/O. HANAMANTAPPA KAMPLI,
MOHANKUMAR
@ ADAKAVU, AGE: 21 YEARS,
B SHELAR OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MALASAMUDRA,
TQ/DIST: GADAG.
Location:
HIGH 2. SMT. SUSHILAVVA
COURT OF W/O. HEMANNA KAMPLI, @ ADAKAVU,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ANNIGERI, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012
MFA No. 102495 of 2015
HC-KAR
4. PRAKASH S/O. MAHADEVAPPA HALLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: ANNIGER, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADV FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R3; R4-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 178(1) MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1987
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
14.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.98/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN SO FAR AS
FIXING THE LIABILITY ON THE APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT THE AWARD
AMOUNT IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle in question under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award dated 14.05.2015 passed in MVC No.98 of 2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (for short 'the tribunal').
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3. On 12.03.2011, the deceased Hanumanthappa Kampli was proceeding towards his house. At that time, the driver of Massy Company tractor its Chessy No. 593704 and engine No.81000 dashed to the deceased Hanumanthappa, as a result, he has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation on the account of the death of Hanumanthappa.
4. Notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle, despite service of notice, owner remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte.
5. The Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that as of the date of accident, the vehicle -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR was unregistered and temporary registration was expired. Thus, there is violation of policy condition. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioner, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The officer of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.R1 to R7. The tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,52,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum and held that the owner of the offending vehicle is responsible for the payment of compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company of the driver.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR
8. The owner of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. Learned counsel for the owner submits that the owner after purchasing the said vehicle got registered the vehicle temporarily after the expiry of the registration, the vehicle met with an accident. She submits that to buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS.
KUMAR AMRUTH AND ANOTHER IN MFA NO.100453/2015 disposed on 28.08.2025. She submits that the appeal may be allowed and the liability may be fasted jointly and severally on the owner of the insurance company.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as of the date of accident the vehicle was not registered. Hence, there is violation of policy condition. To buttress his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NARINDER SINGH VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 9 SCC 324. He submits that the tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased Hanumantappa in the road traffic accident. The only grievance of the insurance company is that, as of the date of accident, the vehicle was not registered. Hence, there is violation of policy condition. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR
14. Admittedly, the insurance company has produced the policy marked as Ex.R5, which discloses that the insurance company has accepted the premium for the period of one year. The policy of the insurance certificate was in force. The insurance company while issuing the certificate of insurance was aware that the insurance vehicle has temporary registration only for a period of 30 days. It was the intention of the insurance company to cover the risk of the vehicle during the temporary registration. During the temporary registration, the insurance company should have issued a policy covering the risk of the vehicle till the expiry of the registration period and it is subsequently stated in the certificate that the certificate of the insurance company would effect as long as the registration certificate of the vehicle is valid.
15. As observed above, the insurance company having received a premium for the whole year, cannot -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR contend that it is not liable to pay the compensation more particularly when the claim is made by the third party.
16. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NARINDER SINGH VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS for avoiding third party liability. It was held in para 10, which reads as under:
"10. For better appreciation, Section 39 and Section 43 which are relevant are quoted herein below:
"39. Necessity for registration: No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR
43. Temporary registration:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.
(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:
Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.
(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner"
17. In the case of Narinder Singh (referred to supra), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR temporary registration of the vehicle for one month expired on 11.01.2006 and the accident took place on 02.02.2006, when the vehicle was not under the registration and hence, the claim made by the insured was rejected for non-registration of the vehicle. It is also revealed that in the said case, the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, which was allowed directing Insurer to indemnify 75% of the claim. The appeal filed by the Insurer before the said Consumer Forum against the said order was allowed and the appeal filed by the insured before the National Commission was dismissed, holding that the vehicle driven without registration was prohibited under Section 39 and punishable under Section 192 of the Act.
18. Further, it was held that the insured is not entitled to claim the damages caused to his own vehicle, since the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident and one month temporary registration was also
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR expired on 11.01.2006. On coming to the instant case on hand, the claim is made by the LR's of the deceased and not by the owner of the vehicle. The registration of the motorcycle is not questioned and hence this case is not made applicable to the instant case on hand.
19. My humble understanding of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NARINDRA SINGH (referred to supra) is in respect of claim made by the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased i.e., third party. It is also to be noticed that when the vehicle was insured, towards the third party liability. The Registration of vehicle after purchasing the vehicle will be done on the basis of the engine number and chessy number. These numbers were duly mentioned in the insurance policy. The insurance is a contract between the insurer and insured. It was not insured on the basis of the temporary registration number or
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR permanent registration number, no such condition was stipulated in the policy in the contract. Therefore, the insurance company cannot escape its liability towards the third party, merely on the account of the vehicle not being registered on the date of accident. The contract of insurance company is based upon a good faith applicable to both the parties. Therefore, merely because the vehicle was not registered under the provisions of Chapter IV of the MV Act, the insurance company cannot escape its liability towards third party.
20. The Tribunal without considering the said aspect has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. As of the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner against the third party. Both the owner and the insurance company are jointly and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR severally liable to pay the compensation to the third party.
21. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 14.05.2015 passed in MVC No.98 of 2011 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, is modified.
iii. It is held that the owner and, the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.
iv. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13012 MFA No. 102495 of 2015 HC-KAR v. Registry is directed to refund the compensation amount deposited by the owner in favour of the owner.
vi. In view of the disposal of the appeal, IA.No.1 of 2015 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27