2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 44821
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2057/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DO-7, PEENYA, NO.44
ANANTHA COMPLEX
NH-4 PEENYA FIRST STAGE
TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 057
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD
BANGALORE-25
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
& APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
1.
SRI. DEVARAJU
S/O LATE MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2.
SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O SRI. DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.220, MALAVALLI
SODAMUDDANAKERE
2
NEW EXTENSION
MANDYA DISTRICT.
3.
MR. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
R/O SAMPURA VIDYAPEETHA POST
KENGERIHOBLI
BANGALORE-560 057.
& RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT
AGAINST
THE
AND
AWARD
DATED:19.03.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.9385/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, AND MEMBER ,
MACT-3
COURT
OF
SMALL
CAUSES,
BANGALORE,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed under Section-173(1), of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (8MV Act9 for brevity), by the
appellant - insurance company, challenging the judgment
and
award
dated
19.03.2011,
passed
in
MVC
No.9385/2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, at Bangalore.
3
Brief facts:
That on 23.08.2009 at about 9.30 a.m.,
deceased Chetan Kumar was riding motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-05-EL-2356 along with pillion rider
Shivraj from J.P.Nagar from Kumbalgod on Nice Road.
While so proceeding on Nice Road, near Mysore Road
Junction, near Kempanna Temple deceased Chetan Kumar
lost control over the motor cycle due to unavoidable
circumstances lost control over the motor cycle and
dashed against the left side of the road medial and thereby
accident occurred. Due to this impact, rider Chetan Kumar
and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries.
Soon after the accident, Chetan Kumar was
shifted to BGS Global Hospital for treatment. During the
course of treatment, on the same day, by 4.15 p.m.,
injured Chetan Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained
in Road Traffic Accident.
4. Thereafter a claim petition was filed by the
claimants i.e., parents of the deceased under Section-163A
of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation. The Tribunal on
4
appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition
in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along
with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition
till the date of deposit, on invoking the provisions of
Section-140 of M.V. Act, on the theory of 8no fault liability9.
Therefore, the appellant-insurance company has preferred
the present appeal, challenging the impugned judgment
and award of the Tribunal.
5.
The learned counsel for the appellant 3
insurance company submitted that the claim petition filed
by respondent Nos.1 and 2 3 claimants is not maintainable
either under Section3163A or under Section-166 of the MV
Act, since the deceased himself was negligent. Therefore,
compensation ought to not to have been granted under
Section3140 of the MV Act on 8no fault liability9 theory.
Therefore, it is submitted the Tribunal has rightly rejected
the claim of the claimants under Section 3 163A of the MV
Act, but awarding compensation under Section3140 of the
MV Act is not correct.
5
6.
Further, submitted that the deceased was rash
and negligent and due to his negligence the accident was
caused and at the time of the accident the deceased was
not holding a Driving License. Therefore, the appellant 3
insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
Therefore, at the most it can be made pay and recovery as
per Section3149 of the MV Act. Therefore, prays to allow
the appeal.
7.
The respondents are served with notice, but
they remained unrepresented.
8.
Upon considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and
on perusal of the records pertaining to the case, it is seen
that the deceased died in the accident while he was riding
motor
cycle
bearing
registration
No.KA-05-EL-2356.
Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a claim
petition under Section3163A of the MV Act. But the
Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex
Court in the case of Ningamma And Another vs. United
India Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2009
6
SC 3056, has dismissed the claim under Section 3 163A as
the deceased was himself rash and negligent and.
Therefore, dismissed the claim under Section3163A and
awarded compensation under Section3140 of the MV Act
on the ground of 8no fault theory9 liability under section3
140 of the MV Act. Therefore, the insurance company has
preferred the p