ON

05.12.2022

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 05.06.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.340/2008 on the file of

3

the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara (8the Tribunal9 for

short).

2.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants in a

petition filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act is that the

deceased was going in a motorcycle along with one Swamy

which met with an accident on the way. As a result, the

deceased had sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he

was shifted to the Government Hospital, Ramanagara and later

to NIMHANS and he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, claim

was made before the Tribunal.

4.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2, in pursuance of the

notice filed their written statement. The respondent No.1

contended that the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle

and accident occurred due to his own negligence and charge-

sheet is also filed against him. Hence, the petition cannot be

4

maintained. It is also contended that the deceased has taken

the vehicle of the respondent No.1 without his consent or

permission and prayed the Court to dismiss the claim petition.

The respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of policy but, denied

the contents of the claim petition, including the age and also his

income. It is contended that the deceased was not holding valid

and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Hence, the

company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is the other

contention that the accident has occurred due to negligence on

the part of the deceased himself and hence, the claimants

cannot maintain the claim petition.

5.

The claimants, in order to substantiate their case,

examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the respondent

No.1 examined himself as R.W.1 and respondent No.2-Insurance

Company examined one witness as R.W.2 and got marked the

documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

6.

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim

5

petition in part granting compensation of Rs.4,89,488/- with

interest at 6% per annum. Hence, the present appeal is filed by

the Insurance Company.

7.

The main grounds urged in the appeal memo is that

the judgment passed by the Tribunal is against the law laid down

in the judgment in NINGAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. reported in 2009 ACJ 2020. It

is also contended that the Tribunal failed to note that, as could

be seen from the criminal Court records and also material

available before the Court, the deceased was riding the

motorcycle along with the pillion rider and the facts goes to show

that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and

hence, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim petition.

The counsel, during the course of his argument also urged other

grounds contending that the Tribunal ought not to have directed

the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The counsel

would contend that the deceased is the rider of the motorcycle

and he is not a third party and when he is not a third party, the

Court ought not to have granted compensation.

6

8.

The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment

of the Bombay High Court in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. VIJAYA AND OTHERS

reported in 2019 ACJ 3028, wherein the Bombay High Court

held that the deceased was not a third party; policy shows that

additional premium was received by the Insurance Company

towards PA cover to owner-cum-driver to the extent of

Rs.1,00,000/- and hence, awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

9.

The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the

Apex Court in RAMKHILADI AND ANOTHER VS UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER