Sri Bharath Kumar vs M/S Zoom Car India Pvt.Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 6020 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                          AND
         THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

             M.F.A NO.4239 OF 2021 (MV-I)

BETWEEN :


SRI. BHARATH KUMAR
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.17, DUPANAHALLI
H.A.L 2ND STAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 008
                                        ...APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.    M/S. ZOOM CAR INDIA PVT.LTD.
      7TH FLOOR, TOWER "B"
      DIAMOND DISTRICT
      H.A.L, AIRPORT ROAD
      BENGALURU-560 008
      (RC OWNER OF SCORPIO ZOOM CAR
      BEARING REG. NO. KA-03-AB-7413)

2.    THE MANAGER
      THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
      REGIONAL OFFICE
                             2




    NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
    M.G. ROAD
    BENGALURU-560 001
    (POLICY NO. 67160231160300008478
    VALID FROM 24-12-2016 TO 23-12-2017)
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.13.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5712/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

      THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the injured claimant

challenging dismissal of his claim petition by

judgment and award dated January 13, 2021 passed

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Court of

Small Causes, Bengaluru, in MVC.No.5712/2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall

be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Heard Shri F.S.Dabali, learned advocate for

the claimant.

4. Claimant approached the Tribunal

contending inter alia that on March 16, 2017, he was

driving a Car belonging to 'Zoom Car' on Bengaluru-

Mysuru Road. To avoid dashing against a cow, he

applied brake and the Car toppled. He and other

inmates of the Car sustained injuries; and sought

compensation from Zoom Car and the Insurer.

5. The owner of the Car contested the claim

contending inter alia that the accident had taken place

solely due to the negligence on the part of the

claimant. The insurer contested the claim by

contending inter alia that claimant was negligent;

that FIR and charge sheet have been filed against the

claimant; that inmates of the Car have filed a

complaint against the claimant; and that claimant had

stepped into the shoes of owner and therefore

claimant was not entitled for any compensation.

6. Tribunal initially framed three issues. The

issue No.1 was re-casted. The issues considered and

answered by the Tribunal read as follows:

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 16.03.2017 at about 9.15 a.m., on Bengaluru - Mysuru Road, near Jain Temple, Vaderahalli, Ramanagar Taluk and District, while he was driving the vehicle Scorpio Zoom Car bearing reg. No.KA-03-AB-7413 as alleged in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and at what quantum?

3. What Order or Award?"

7. Answering issue No.1 in the affirmative

and issue No.2 in the negative, the Tribunal has

dismissed the petition.

8. Shri Dabali for the claimant submitted that

• the Tribunal ought to have considered that

in a petition under Section 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for

short), the claimant need not plead or

establish that the accident was due to

negligence on the part of the owner or any

other person;

• under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the

owner of the vehicle and it's insurer are

liable to pay compensation; and

• the claimant has sustained total disability

and dependent upon family members for

his day today activities.

With the above submissions, he prayed for

sought for allowing this appeal.

9. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions and perused the records.

10. Undisputed facts of the case are, claimant

had hired a car from the first respondent and driving it

himself. In the accident, claimant and other inmates

have sustained injuries. Thus, he steps into the shoes

of the owner of the Car. Claim petition is filed under

Section 163-A of the MV Act. In substance, claimant

is seeking compensation from himself and such a

petition is not maintainable.

11. Therefore, no exception can be taken to

the dismissal of the petition by the Tribunal.

Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Yn.