JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the order of the Small Causes Court and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-09) passed in MVC No.6788/2013 dated 01.12.2014.

2. On 19.10.2013 at about 6.15 p.m., when the appellant was going on his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-Y-2558 along with his friend as a pillion rider near Talakunte Gate, Malur Taluk, a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-M-4913 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle. The appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was hospitalized and treated as an inpatient towards which he incurred huge expenses. He further stated that the appellant was a student of a Bachelor of Commerce at the time of the accident, he was not able to attend his college for a period of three months and therefore, he could not take up his examination and consequently, he was declared failed for that particular year.

3. On the basis of the above, the appellant approached the Tribunal seeking for compensation towards injuries and losses caused to him.

4. The Tribunal after considering the material on record awarded a sum of Rs.2,27,000/-along with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization under the following heads.

Sl. No. Heads of accounts Rupees (Rs.)

1 Pain and sufferings 40,000

2 Medical expenses 8,000

3 Attendant charges, nutritious expenses & transportation charges 14,000

4 Loss of future income due to permanent disability 1,30,000

5 Future medical expenses 15,000

6 Loss of future amenities and unhappiness 20,000

Total 2,27,000

5. The Tribunal, however, noting that the offending Maruti Car did not possess a fitness certificate as on the date of the accident, though it had a fitness certificate on the date of issuance of the insurance policy, held that the owner of the offending car i.e., insured has violated the terms of the policy and therefore, imposed the penalty on the owner of the car and discharged the Insurance Company from its liability.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads of account is meager. The same needs to be enhanced. On account of the accident, the appellant not being able to take up his examination has not been considered by the Tribunal and amounts towards the same needs to be awarded.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company would submit that the non-renewal of the fitness certificate by the owner of the car is in violation of terms of the insurance policy as also of the Motor Vehicle Act. The owner of the vehicle could not have driven the vehicle without a fitness certificate and therefore, due to such violation, the owner of the vehicle is required to make payment of compensation. The same cannot be imposed on the Insurance Company. On the basis of the said contention, it is submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no need for any interference by this Court with the said order.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company and perused the papers.

9. At para 26 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has observed that the offending vehicle was insured for the period from 10.04.2013 to 09.04.2014 and as on date of the accident, there was a valid fitness certificate which was active till 23.07.2013. The accident having occurred on 19.10.2013, fitness certificate had not been renewed by the owner of the car.

10. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal has held that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of RANGAPPA @ RANGAPPA SHETTY VS. JAYARAMAIAH AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2014 KAR 191 was not applicable since the fitness certificate expired subsequent to the issuance of the insurance policy and there was a violation of the policy condition.

11. Having perused the documents and the judgment, it is seen that as on the date of the issuance of the insurance polic