Legal representatives of a tort-feasor are not entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it would allow a person to benefit from their own negligence.

CAV JUDGMENT & ORDER

ON I.A.NO.1/2024

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

Challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1483/2014 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere, claimants have filed this appeal.

2. The appellants were the claimants and respondents were the respondents in MVC No.1483/2014 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The wife, son and parents of deceased Sri.S.N.Ravisha filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of Sri.N.S.Ravisha in a road accident that occurred on 18.06.2014. It was contended that the deceased was driving Fiat Linea Car bearing registration No.KA-06 N-5997 from Mallasandra Village to Arasikere town along with his father, sister and her children. Near Mylanahalli gate, Arsikere, he drove the car in high speed, rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, lost control over the car, as such the car toppled on the road and accident occurred. Ravisha sustained fatal injuries on his head and succumbed to the injuries. His dead body was shifted to Jayachamarajendra Government Hospital. Doctor conducted postmortem. It was also contended that Ravisha was a BBMP contractor with several ongoing projects in his hand, was earning Rs.3,00,000/- p.m., was an income tax assessee and was the only earning member of the family. The Arasikere Rural police have registered the FIR in Crime No.149/2014 and on investigation, filed abated charge sheet against Sri.S.N.Ravisha for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). They sought for grant of compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 being the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has entered appearance before the Tribunal. However, he did not file written statement. Respondent No.2 - the insurer filed detailed written statement. It was contended that the claim petition is not maintainable and the claimants are not entitled for any compensation as the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The police filed charge sheet against the deceased which clearly establishes that the deceased was negligent and there is clear admission in the claim petition with regard to the deceased being negligent. It was further contended that it is the primary responsibility of the insurer to pay compensation in the cases of third party victim of the accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle by way of contract of indemnity. In the instant case, the deceased himself was negligent, hence indemnifying the insured would not arise. It was also contended that the claimants have exorbitantly claimed the compensation, denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence. Claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of respondent/insurer RW-1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence recorded the finding that the claim petition filed by the heirs of tort-feasor is not maintainable in law under Section 166 of the Act and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal seeking for compensation.

6. Sri.Vamshi Krishna C., learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in dismissing the claim petition without appreciating the pleading and evidence on record in its proper prospective. It is submitted that the Tribunal has come to erroneous conclusion that the claimants have not produced the IMV report. However, the said report was produced before the Tribunal but the Tribunal failed to consider the same which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that t