The insurer is liable to pay compensation despite the absence of a valid permit for the offending vehicle, with the right to recover from the vehicle owner.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

MFA No.100406/2023 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Member, MACT-VIII, Badami (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.556/2019, whereas, MFA No.103878/2022 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the claimants’ case before the Tribunal are as under:

On 23.06.2019, the deceased Manjunath was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-26/EA-3992 towards Malligeri village of Bagalkote Taluka, when he reached near Haveri Hotel at about 2.00 p.m., the driver of TATA Tipper bearing temporary registration No.KA-22/TMP-2019/21122 (KA-29/B-7676) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident, due to which, the said Manjunath sustained grievous injuries to his both legs. He was shifted to Dr. R.G. Karudagimath Hospital for treatment but, on the same day he died at about 10.15 p.m., in the hospital. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Manjunath.

4. On appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.20,54,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, with a direction to respondent-Insurance Company of offending vehicle to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal in MFA No.100406/2023 on the ground of liability. The claimants also filed an appeal in MFA No.103878/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has contended that as on the date of accident, there was no permit and fitness certificate to the offending vehicle and the same is violation of permit condition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , the condition of the policy has been violated by the insured. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering Ex.R4-the vehicle permit issued by the RTO. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to claimants. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding meager compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment. The Tribunal has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material evidence on record. He further contended that the deceased Manjunath was doing agriculture and also coolie work prior to the accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has not considered this aspect. Further, the Tribunal has not properly awarded fair compensation under the different heads. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the loss of earning properly without assigning any reasons and has committed an error in awarding meager interest at the rate of 6% per annum, hence, it has to be enhanced to 12% per annum. Therefore, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the claimants and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the points that would ar