Karnataka High Court
Hottemanchaiah vs Chowdegowda on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30273
MFA No. 2722 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2722 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
HOTTEMANCHAIAH
S/O ANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT MOLLEKOPPALU VILLAGE,
KERAGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA-TQ & DIST PIN-571401
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHOWDEGOWDA
S/O CHANNEGOWDA
R/AT SIDDEGOWDANADODDI,
MANDYA TQ & DIST 571401
Digitally 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
signed by INSURANCE CO LTD,
BHARATHI S
NO. 363, SRI HARI COMPLEX,
Location:
HIGH COURT SITHA VILAS ROAD,
OF MYSORE-570024
KARNATAKA REP BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P B RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.1.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.60/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30273
MFA No. 2722 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 challenging the judgment
and award dated 13.1.2014 passed in MVC No.60/2006 by the
Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Mandya2 whereunder the
claim petition has been dismissed.
2. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri Raja L. for
appellant and learned counsel Sri P.B. Raju for respondent No.2
3. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider
and due to the negligence of the rider of the insured vehicle,
the accident has been caused and hence, the claimant is
entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the said
accident. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the above appeal.
1 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'
hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:30273
4. It is the case of the claimant in the claim petition, that
he was riding as a pillion rider in the insured scooter and due
to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider
of the vehicle, the said scooter fell into a ditch which was on
the left side of the road causing the accident in question,
wherein the claimant sustained injuries.
5. The Tribunal, noticing that the rider of the vehicle has
also pleaded guilty in the Criminal Case No.506/2006 (Ex.P8)
has recorded a finding that the accident in question having
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
scooter, it is not open to the claimant who was riding as a
pillion rider to claim compensation.
6. In this context, it is relevant to note that that the policy
of insurance (Ex.R2) discloses that apart from own damages
premium of `578/- and basic 3rd party liability towards which a
premium of `160/- has been paid, in respect of PA cover for
owner/driver of `1,00,000/-, `50/- is paid towards premium.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India
Insurance Co.Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others3
(2006) 4 SCC 404
NC: 2024:KHC:30273
was considering a case where the claimant was riding as a
pillion rider and no additional premium was paid to cover the
risk of pillion rider has held as follows:
"21. In our view, although the observations
made in Asha Rani11 case were in connection with
carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same
would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers
in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the
contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it
owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the
deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the
insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it
did not cover the risk of the death of or bodily injury to
a gratuitous passenger."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Admittedly, a pillion rider cannot be considered as a 3rd
party as has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of The Branch Manager, The New India
Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Mahadev Pandurang Patil and
Another4 wherein it has been held as follows:
"15. Therefore, the passenger of a vehicle which is not
meant for public service is not covered under this
Section. The said passenger in the case of a two wheeler
ILR 2011 KAR 850
NC: 2024:KHC:30273
is the pillion rider and in the case of three wheeler and
four wheeler the occupants of such vehicle who are not
carried in the said vehicle for hire or reward. Therefore,
the insurance policy taken in respect of a vehicle, in
which they are travelling as such passengers are not
treated as third parties and such an insurance do not
cover the risk of such persons. The reason is Section 147
does not require a policy to cover the risk to passengers
who are not carried for hire or reward. The statutory
insurance does not cover injuries suffered by occupants
of the vehicle who are not carried for hire or reward and
the insurer cannot be held liable under the Act. The
occupants/passengers/inmates of a private vehicle do
not fall within the definition of the word third party.
Therefore, the legal obligation arising under Section 147
of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of
the owner of the vehicle, passengers in such private
vehicle or a pillion rider in the case of a two wheeler.
Gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or
reward in a vehicle other than a public service vehicle,
cannot be construed as third parties."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In view of the admitted fact situation and the settled
position of law as noticed above, the appellant has failed in
demonstrating that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is
erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
NC: 2024:KHC:30273
10. In view of the aforementioned, the above appeal is
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
BS
