Shri. Veerbhadra S/O Lagamappa ... vs Sri. Chandrakant Pralhad Bhosale
2022 Latest Caselaw 11869 Kant

                                                -1-




                                                       MFA No. 103097 of 2015


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                              BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103097 OF 2015 (MV)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SHRI VEERBHADRA,
                         S/O LAGAMAPPA GADAKARI,
                         AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                         R/O: NIDASOSI, TQ: HUKERI,
                         DIST: BELAGAVI.

                   2.    SMT. MAHADEVI,
                         W/O VEERBHADRA GADAKARI,
                         AGE:54 YEARS,
                         OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                         R/O: NIDASOSI, TQ: HUKERI,
                         DIST: BELAGAVI.

                   3.    SMT. SHARADA,
                         W/O RAVINDRA GADAKARI,
                         AGE:26 YEARS,
                         OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                         R/O: NIDASOSI, TQ: HUKERI,
                         DIST: BELAGAVI.
       Digitally
       signed by
John John Doe
     Date:
Doe 2022.09.19
     12:21:23
                   4.    KUMAR. ATHARVA,
       +0530
                         S/O RAVINDRA GADAKARI,
                         AGE:2 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
                         R/O: NIDASOSI, TQ: HUKERI,
                         DIST: BELAGAVI.
                         SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS GUARDIAN/
                         NATURAL MOTHER
                         SHARADA W/O RAVINDRA GADAKARI.
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                             (BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
                            -2-




                                   MFA No. 103097 of 2015


AND:

1.   SRI CHANDRAKANT PRALHAD BHOSALE,
     AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
     R/O: NIDASOSI, TQ:HUKERI,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.
     (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE
     BEARING ENGINE NO.JC36E3015437
     AND CHASSIS NO.ME4JC36BDC8006954).

2.   THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     MARGOA, GOA INDIA,
     (POLICY ISSUING OFFICER)
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT:
     II FLOOR, MUDALAGI BLDG,
     CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
     (INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE
     BEARING ENGINE NO.JC36E3015437
     AND CHASSIS NO.ME4JC36BDC8006954)
     (MOTOR VEHICLE COVERS
     NOTE NO.MRO-II/2012, 2012-13,
     51145 VALID FROM 18.5.2012 TO
     17.5.2013)
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

         (BY SRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2,
                        R-1 SERVED)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.08.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.985/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 163-A OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -3-




                                        MFA No. 103097 of 2015


                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 21.08.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.985/2013, on the

file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,

Belagavi ('the Tribunal' for short) dismissing the petition filed

under Section 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act ('MV Act' for

short).

3. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased,

who met with an accident and sustained the injuries and

succumbed to the injuries and hence the claim was made under

Section 163-A of the MV Act. The Tribunal dismissed the claim

petition on the ground that the deceased had borrowed the

vehicle from his friend and he stepped into the shoes of the

insured and hence the Insurance Company cannot indemnify

the insured. No doubt, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion

that he himself is negligent. However, in paragraph No.18

considered the judgment in the case of NINGAMMA AND

ANOTHER v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. reported

MFA No. 103097 of 2015

in 2009 ACJ 2020, wherein it is held that borrower steps into

the shoes of the owner; owner cannot himself be a recipient of

compensation as liability to pay the same is on him and

referring this judgment comes to the conclusion that the

claimants are not entitled for any compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the claimants would

contend that in terms of respondent No.1, an amount of

Rs.100/- is collected and on verifying Ex.R.2, it is blank in the

column compulsory PA cover for owner-cum-driver.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied

upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

RAMKHILADI AND ANOTHER v. THE UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER passed in Civil

Appeal No.9393/2019 dated 07.01.2020, wherein it is held

that once he stepped into the shoes of owner, not entitled for

compensation. However, if any payment of premium is paid in

respect of PA cover, then only entitled for compensation. But

on perusal of Ex.R.2, no such premium is paid and hence I do

not find any error committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the

claim petition. In the absence of any payment of premium for

MFA No. 103097 of 2015

PA coverage, the question of awarding compensation under the

head of PA cover does not arise. The principles laid down in

the judgments referred supra is clear that the borrower steps

into the shoes of the owner and there cannot be any payment

of compensation in respect of the insured and the insured

cannot himself be a recipient of compensation as liability to pay

the same is on him. Under the circumstances, I do not find any

merit in the appeal.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

sd JUDGE

MD