Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager Oriental ... vs Sri.Annaraya S/O Channabasappa ... on 27 July, 2021
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MFA No.200567/2016 (MV)
Between:
The Branch Manager
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Vijaypur, Represented by
The Divisional Manager
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
N.G. Complex, 1st Floor
Opp: Mini Vidhana Soudha Gulbarga
... Appellant
(By Sri Uday P. Honguntikar and
Smt. Amrutha V. Deshmanya, Advocates)
And:
1. Sri Annaraya S/o. Channabasappa Patil
Age: 56 years, Occ: Nil
2. Smt. Gangabai W/o. Annaraya Patil
Age: 54 years, Occ: Household work
Both are R/o. HIre Bevanur
Tq: Indi, Dist: Vijayapur
3. The Inspector General of Police
State Intelligence, Nrupathunga Road
2
Bengaluru
4. The Manager
Karnataka Government Insurance
Department, Vijaypur
... Respondents
(By Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, Advocate for R1 &
R2; Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, GA for R3 & R4;
Sri Sanganabasava B. Patil, Advocate R5)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 of M. V. Act, praying to set aside the judgment and
award in MVC No.1467/2012 dated 30.12.2015 passed by
the Prl. Senior Civiol Judge and MACT No.V at Vijayapur
dated 30.12.2015 by allowing the appeal.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and MACT No.V, Vijayapur (henceforth referred as
Tribunal) dated 30.12.2015 in MVC No.1467/2012.
2. The judgment and award of the Tribunal
discloses that the claimants are the legal representatives
of Santosh, who was aged 18 years and a tailor by
profession who was earning a monthly income of
Rs.3,000/-. On 17.05.2010, he was travelling in a jeep
bearing registration No.KA-28/P-3346. At about 00.30
hours, when the jeep was plying on Indi - Agarkhed road
near the land of Huvanna Jiddimani, it dashed against a
motorcycle bearing registration KA-01/G-4981. As a result
Santosh died on the spot. The claimants therefore filed a
claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act (henceforth referred as M. V. Act.) claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. The insurer of the jeep contested the claim
petition and denied that the accident occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep.
4. Based on these rival contentions, the case was
set down for trial. The claimant No.1 was examined as
PW.1 and he marked Exs.P1 to P5 while the insurer did
not adduce any oral evidence but marked Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal took into account that the claim
petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V Act and
therefore held that there was no requirement of proof of
negligence. The Tribunal considered the monthly income
of the deceased at a sum of Rs.3,000/- and after deducting
1/3rd towards his living expenses, awarded compensation
in a sum of Rs.4,36,500/-. The tribunal also awarded
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
claim petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
award, the insurer has filed this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the vehicle in question was a private
vehicle but was used for commercial purposes. He also
contended that the insurer had issued a policy in respect of
the vehicle towards liability only and not to cover the risk
of the occupants of the jeep. He therefore contended the
Tribunal was not justified in fixing the liability on the
insurer to pay the compensation.
8. On the on other hand, the claimants contended
that in similar circumstances, this Court in MFA
No.200991/2015 had held that the insurer is liable to pay
and recover the compensation.
9. Section 163-A of the M. V. Act was introduced
in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Corporation and Others vs. Trilok chandra and
Others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362. Section 163-A of
the M. V. Act reads as follows:
"163A. Special provisions as to payment
of compensation on structured formula basis.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act or in any other law for the time
being in force or instrument having the force of
law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the
authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the
case of death or permanent disablement due to
accident arising out of the use of motor
vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the
Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the
victim, as the case may be. Explanation.--For
the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent
disability" shall have the same meaning and
extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under
sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be
required to plead or establish that the death or
permanent disablement in respect of which the
claim has been made was due to any wrongful
act or neglect or default of the owner of the
vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other
person.
(3) The Central Government may,
keeping in view the cost of living by notification
in the Official Gazette, from time to time
amend the Second Schedule."
10. Therefore, for a claim under Section 163-A of
M. V. Act, the claimant need not prove the negligence. All
that he/she needs to prove is that the injury or death
resulted due to an accident by use of a motor vehicle on a
public road. In the present case, the deceased was
travelling inside the jeep and therefore no negligence could
be attributed to him. However, since death has resulted
due to the accident, the claimants were entitled to make a
claim under Section 163-A of M. V. Act. The Tribunal has
precisely done this and had held that the insurer is liable
to pay the compensation.
11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
error in the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Hence,
the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal
for necessary orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srt
