Lack of valid registration or permit alone does not absolve an insurer of third-party liability.

On 22 May 2014, Akhanbasha was a pillion rider on a motorcycle involved in a head-on collision with another motorcycle.

He sustained serious injuries, including injuries to his right leg that ultimately resulted in a below-knee amputation.

The Tribunal awarded him Rs.5,43,300, assessed his disability at 25%, and attributed 50% of the negligence to each rider.

Akhanbasha appealed for enhanced compensation; the insurer of the other motorcycle appealed against being held liable for 50% of the award.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the applicable multiplier is determined by the claimant’s age; the Court applied multiplier 16 for the claimant, aged 34.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects are added to income; the Court applied a 40% addition.

The Court also applied the Karnataka Legal Services Authority’s income guidelines, fixing notional monthly income at Rs.8,000 for an accident in 2014.

On liability, the Court treated the riders’ respective negligence as contributing equally and held that the claimant, as owner of the motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider, could not recover from that motorcycle’s insurer; the owner and insurer of the other motorcycle remained liable for the share attributable to that vehicle.

The Court further held that the alleged absence of valid registration did not, by itself, exonerate the other motorcycle’s insurer from liability to the claimant.

The Court found that the claimant’s below-knee amputation and the medical evidence supported a 40% disability, rather than the Tribunal’s 25% assessment.

Applying the 2014 notional income of Rs.8,000, a 40% addition for future prospects, multiplier 16 and 40% disability, it calculated future loss of income at Rs.8,60,160.

It also increased compensation for pain and suffering, attendant and incidental expenses, laid-up-period loss of income, and loss of amenities, and awarded Rs.25,000 for future medical expenses.

As to liability, the Court relied on the charge sheets against both riders and the evidence of a head-on collision to maintain equal apportionment of negligence.

It rejected the insurer’s challenge based on registration, holding that the alleged invalid registration did not justify exoneration in this claim.

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.12,00,460, with the enhanced amount carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until payment.

The owner and insurer of the other motorcycle were held jointly and severally liable for 50% of the compensation—Rs.6,00,230, with accrued interest—payable within four weeks of receipt of the certified judgment.