Introductory:

Factual Matrix common for both cases:

Respondent No.2 and 3, being the owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are liable to compensate.

(iii). A case in Crime No.119 of 2015 was registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station and after necessary inquiry, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.1. Specific case of claimants in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015:

Specific Case of claimants in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015:

Defence of Respondent No.3 Insurance Company:

02.08.2015 i.e. beyond / more than one month after the temporary registration. Therefore, the vehicle should not have been plied on the road without registration. Hence, there is violation.

(iv). Further, respondent No.1 had a licence to drive only a non transport vehicle and a proper driving licence to drive the offending vehicle / ambulance was not there with the Respondent No.1. Hence, there is violation of conditions of policy. Therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation.

11. Issues settled by the learned MACT and evidence adduced in both cases is as follows:

1. M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015 1. Whether the accident, that occurred on 02.08.2015 at 07:00 P.M near Gopalapuram in which the deceased Muttanaboyina Prasad died is due to rash and negligent driving of Ambulance bearing No.AP 05 VJTR 7645 by 1st respondent?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

2. M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015 1. Whether the accident, that occurred on 02.08.2015 at 07:00 P.M. near Gopalapuram in which the deceased Muttanaboyina Prasad died is due to rash and negligent driving of Ambulance bearing No.AP 05 VJTR 7645 by 1st respondent?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

13(ii). Absence of regular registration for the offending vehicle.

(i). Regular registration was obtained on 03.12.2015. 12

(ii). There is no reference to necessity of registration in the conditions of policy particularly in Ex.B1.

(iii). Further, Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act does not indicate the absence of registration as an exemption to avoid liability. On quantum:

In M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015

For the claimants:

16. Heard both sides extensively. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

17. Now the points that arise for determination in these appeals are:

Point No.1:

18. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara1 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 39 , 43 , 149 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was a case where respondent / complainant purchased a car and got it insured with the appellant Insurance Company. At the time of insurance, the vehicle was temporarily registered. After the expiry of registration, the complainant took the vehicle out for his work related travel and it was parked outside a guest house in another city. During the night stay, the vehicle was stolen and a claim was made before the District Forum. The claim was dismissed by the District Forum. In appeal, the State Commission allowed the claim in favour of the complainant. The Insurance Company filed a 1 (2021) 14 SCC 519 15 revision before the National Commission and the same was dismissed and the matter went up to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

19. The Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the scope of liability of the Insurance Company with reference to the facts in the case as well as the earlier observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others2 and also in Naveen Kumar vs. National Insurance Company Limited3 , the observations in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, made in paragraph Nos.10 to 14 are as follows:

2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2-2-2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11-1-2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle, either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract."

13. In Naveen Kumar [Naveen Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1738] , NCDRC decided a reference Naveen 17 Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Naveen Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1739] , to its Bench, and held that : ( Naveen Kumar case [ Naveen Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1738] , SCC OnLine NCDRC para 10) "10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered in the following terms:

14. In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent's vehicle had expired on 28-7-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent's premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] applies, in the opinion of this Court. That Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court's opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation 18 of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] , entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy.

21. There is no apparent conflict between Sections 39 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but from the point of view of their intended purposes, the registration contemplated under Section 39 is for identification of the vehicle and the insurance obtained is for the purpose of indemnifying the owner for self claims as well as well as third party claims.

22. The statutory mandate requires compulsory third-party insurance for running a vehicle and it is an offence if not opting insurance. Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows:

23. The consequence of running a vehicle without registration under Section 192, is a breach for which fine is contemplated. Whereas, the provisions under Section 196 contemplate punishment for the first offense itself. The necessity of third party insurance is aimed at social welfare as well as the social security measure in case of third party risks. In the present case, the duty of care on the part of the owner of the vehicle with reference to obtaining third party insurance is complied with and it is not the case that the period of insurance covered by the policy issued is expired. It is only the registration expired. It is to be seen that, the registration lapse is also a breach and the same will amounts to a fundamental breach, in terms of the observation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 Supra).

24. Similarly, the observations in respect of absence of permit and inflexion thereof give the right to the Insurance Company to take the defence of fundamental breach in terms of Section 149(2) , as observed in Pareed Pillai vs. 20 Oriental Insurance Company Limited4 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Challa Upendra Rao and Others5 . But absence of permit is a factor is to be viewed distinctly from absence of registration.

25. The lead that can be drawn from the observation of Hon‟ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 Supra) case vide para 14 is that, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents applied for registration or that they were awaiting registration. It was a case where the vehicle in question was stolen and a claim was made by the insured against the insurer in respect of theft. However, the context of case of accident was also considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court with reference to the Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others case (2 supra) but it was also a case between the insured and the insurer as to damage to the vehicle. It was not a case of a third party claim. The principle underlying is whether the breach would give rise to avoid liability. Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act like Section 43 and subsequent registration are noted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para No.14 of the judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 Supra).

26. In the present case, there was subsequent registration of the vehicle which can be seen from the observations in the impugned judgment and also the evidence vide Ex.X4.

2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3543 5 (2004) 8SCC 517 21

27. It is also relevant to note that, even in respect of want of fitness certificate etc. contemplated under section 66 , Section 66(3) provides that the embargo contemplated under Section 66(1) has some exceptions. Section 66(3)(d) covers the exemption in respect of ambulances. In the case on hand before this Court, the offending vehicle is an ambulance. The claimants are third parties. Nothing is elicited as to whether any application for registration was made and pending during the interregnum period. But it is relevant to note that the temporary registration expired on 29.07.2015 and the accident taken place on 02.08.2015 and the regular registration of vehicle was effected on 03.12.2015 vide Ex.X4. Insurance Policy under Ex.B1 is covering the period from 30.06.2015 12:00:01 A.M to 29.06.2016 11:59:59 P.M.

28. The learned MACT imposed the liability jointly and severally on both the respondents i.e. the owner and the Insurance Company. The reasoning of the learned MACT for imposing the liability on the Insurance Company is that as per evidence of R.W.3 to run an ambulance no permit is required and the ambulance is LMV. The driving licence possessed by the respondent No.1 is sufficient to drive the ambulance. By the date of accident, temporary registration was obtained by respondent No.2 although the same was expired and regular registration was obtained thereafter under Section 149(2) there is no reference about the registration of the vehicle as a defence to avoid the liability. Even Ex.B1 does not contain such condition. Therefore, it is not possible to accept 22 that there is a condition in the policy exempting the Insurance Company from liability on the ground of registration.

29. Factual justification alone addressed by the learned MACT. The mandate to obtain insurance, making it statutory affair, has a social purpose and such mandate has been complied with. The mandate of registration is also important one and its violation is having some consequences. Upon juxtaposition of the importance of both registration and obtaining of insurance and on visualization of the purposes for which both provisions are there, particularly from the point of view of the third party, this Court is of the humble view that it is a fit case to adopt the policy of „pay and recovery‟ instead of total exemption of the Insurance Company from liability.

30. When the statute itself provides scope for registration after expiry of temporary registration and such registration was effected, putting a third party to denial of remedy does not work in achieving the legislative intendment.

31. Fitness to run the vehicle on road is different from having a fitness certificate to run the vehicle on the road. Having fitness certificate is different from having a registration certificate. Having temporary registration and subsequently having permanent registration is a saving grace in the present case. The case in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 supra) and Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company 23 Limited and Others (2 supra) are pertaining to the claim inter se insured and insurer with reference to the Consumer Protection Act .

32. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Challa Upendra Rao and Others (5 supra) decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (4 supra) decided by the Kerala High Court with reference to fitness certificate.

Violation as to Driving Licence:

33. The defence as to want of transport endorsement does not merit any consideration in the context of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The legal position as to a person holding of non-transport category driving licence of „Light Motor Vehicle‟ driving transport vehicle has been addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 6 [ Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited7 [Mukund Dewangan (2017)].

34. Further, the reference made on the point whether "a person holding a licence for a „Light Motor Vehicle‟ class non transport can drive a „Transport Vehicle‟ without a specific endorsement, provided the „Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)‟ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?" is answered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and 6 (2016) 4 SCC 298 7 (2019) 12 SCC 816 24 Others8 at length and the observation are made under the caption of conclusions are as follows:

35. It is relevant to note that the evidence relating to the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is not placed by the Insurance Company. Further, if a person driving a transport category vehicle with non-transport endorsement, where the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs, it will not entitle the 8 2024 SCC Online SC 3183 25 Insurance Company to claim exoneration from the liability is the settled legal proposition, as per the Judgments referred above i.e. Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund Dewangan ( 2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund Dewangan ( 2017)] and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others .

36. In view of the discussion made above, with reference to the factual matrix in the case and the precedential guidance, this Court finds that the liability imposed on Insurance Company is proper. However, it is fit to be modified as to the pay and recovery. The Insurance Company shall pay and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The point framed is answered accordingly.

Point Nos.2 and 3:

(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are:

d) Just Compensation:

The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 :

Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213]

11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.

e) Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:-

( 2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.14 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:-

( 3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others15 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-

A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation."

42. In respect of M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015, the income of the deceased, adopted at Rs.4,500/- per month, when seen with reference to his age, socio- economic circumstances from which the deceased hails and the bachelor status of the deceased, is found justified.

43. It is also relevant to note that the claimants are the brothers and total dependency factor on the Income of the deceased may not be there for them.

44. P.W.1 stated that due to sudden death of the deceased, they lost the love and affection and moral support of the deceased and they are suffering mental agony.

45. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another16, the point considered was, whether a brother of a person who is killed in a motor vehicle accident can claim compensation in a proceeding instituted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and observed that the Court should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon bread winner of the family. If the bread winner is killed on account of motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation. It was a case where a „14‟ years old boy died in a motor vehicle accident and the brothers of the deceased instituted a petition for compensation. The compensation awarded was questioned. In that scenario, the above observations are made with reference to Fatal Accidents Act etc.

46. In a case between The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dhamodhara Pandian17, while addressing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the principles relating to entitlement of legal representatives to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act , even if they are not financially dependent on the deceased has been considered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras vide para Nos.11 to 14, after referring to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai 16 1987 Supreme (SC) 522 17 2025 Supreme (Online) (Mad) 55911 32 Prabhatbhai and another case mentioned above, the observations in para 11 to 14 are as follows:

13. In paragraph 15 of the said decision , while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed , in that case , the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning.

14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. .......

12. A learned Judge of this Court in K.Sivakumar Vs. R.Muthu Kumar and Others reported in 2022(2) TN MAC 403 after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, has held that there is no iota of doubt that the legal representatives can maintain the claim under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and so, the issue as to whether the brother of 35 the deceased can maintain a claim and whether he is entitled for compensation is answered in favour of the appellants/claimants.

13. As already pointed out, in the case on hand, the first claimant being the brother of the deceased along with his wife and children have laid the above application claiming compensation for the death of his brother Lakshmana Kumar. Considering the above and the legal position above referred, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under the loss of dependency and others heads."

11. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jithendra kumar and another Vs. Sanjay Prasad and another in Civil Appeal No.7199 of 2025, dated 22.05.2025, has specifically held that the legal representatives, including married and earning sons and daughters, are entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act irrespective of financial dependency on the deceased and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder :

14.Such exposition came to be followed by this Court in Seema Rani and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 6 , wherein 36 it was observed that the application for compensation, even by married sons and daughters, must be considered, irrespective of whether they are fully dependant or not. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the claimant-appellant(s) became partner in the consultancy firm run by the deceased. Moreover, it is not in dispute that that the Flour Mill being run by the deceased, is still being run by the claimant-appellant(s). In such a factual circumstance, it cannot be said that the claimant-appellant(s) were financially dependent upon the deceased.

47. In a judgment, the High Court of Madras referred to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Jithendra Kumar and another vs. sanjay Prasad and another in Civil Appeal No.7199 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025, with regard to the entitlement of legal representatives, including married and earning sons and daughters. In the said case, High Court of Madras positively held entitlement of brothers for compensation and approved awarding of compensation by the learned MACT by applying the principles in Sarla Verma‟s and Pranay Sethi‟s etc. cases. Therefore, the contention of Insurance Company found not tenable.

48. The other argument of the Insurance Company is that the income of the deceased adopted is excessive. When the same is considered with reference to the year of accident 2015. The counter argument of the claimants is that future prospects are not added. Since there is no apparent basis for accepting the income adopted by the learned MACT which is the notional basis, if the same is 37 fit to be considered as excessive the argument of the claimants that future prospects are not added required to be answered.

49. The income adopted by the learned MACT in respect of both claimants if taken as inclusive of future prospects, the grievance of the Insurance Company as well as the claimants would get addressed. Therefore, the income adopted is considered as inclusive of future prospects in the factual scenario of the cases before this Court.

50. Upon considering entire case and contentions, the entitlement of claimants in both cases for compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is concluded as follows:

Point Nos.4 and 5:

Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT.

(v) Claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once on deposit.

2015 at Rs.11,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.12,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(iii) Claimant No.1 / the mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.4,85,600/- with proportionate interest and total costs.

(iv) Claimant No.2 / the daughter of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,42,800/- with proportionate interest.

(v) Claimant No.3 / the son of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,42,800/-

with proportionate interest.

(vi) Claimant No.4 / the mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,42,800/- with proportionate interest.

(vii) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee, if any, for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT.

(viii) Respondents before the learned MACT are jointly and severally liable. However, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount on payment from owner of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT.

(ix) Claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once on deposit.

(x) Time for deposit is two months.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.

____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:10th, October, 2025 Note: