The court clarified the liability of insurers in accident claims under the MV Act, especially regarding compensation calculations and the assessment of evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant, who is respondent No.2 in the Cross-objection; and Sri Bhat Ananta Krishna, learned counsel respondent Nos.1 to 4, the Cross-objectors in the Cross-objection.

2. The appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 23.01.2024 passed in MVC No.5736/2021 by the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small causes, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH.13), Tribunal, disputing the involvement of the offending vehicle, its liability, and the quantum of compensation. The cross-objection is filed by the claimants.

3. For brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, Act, seeking compensation for the death of Sri Hiren Madhusudan. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children, and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. The averments in the claim petition are that on 14.11.2021 at about 2.45 p.m., while the deceased was seated on his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-43-W- 3819, which was parked on the extreme left side of the Bengaluru–Bellary Road in front of Decathlon, near Chikkajala, Bengaluru, the driver of the car bearing registration No. KA-50- Z-0230, Offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous head injuries.

4.1 The deceased was initially taken to Life Care Hospital, where first aid was administered, and thereafter shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, where he was treated as an inpatient. However, he succumbed to the injuries on 24.11.2021. It is further stated that the deceased was taken to Mumbai in an ambulance and that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was incurred towards his last rites. It is pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.1,10,000/- per month and that hospital expenses to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- were incurred.

4.2 After service of notice, respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, denied the manner of the accident and the negligence attributed to the driver, and contended that the deceased himself was negligent. It was further asserted that the cause of death was on account of the deceased not wearing a helmet. It is contended that the deceased came from behind the car, suddenly applied brake, fell down, and sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 admitted that the offending vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy and that its driver possessed a valid driving licence.

4.3 Respondent No.2–insurer, while admitting that the offending vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident, denied its liability. It is contended that the police failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act and disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle. It is specifically contended that the case is one of hit and run and that the complaint was lodged after a delay of three days by falsely implicating the offending vehicle in order to claim compensation.

4.4 It is further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle without wearing a helmet. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Apart from these denials, the insurer has also denied the ag