Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Parvati And Ors on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7964
MFA No. 201809 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201809 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGER
THE IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
G-12 & 13, ASIAN ARCADE
NEAR ANAND HOTEL
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI.
THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARVATI
W/O LATE BHOJAPPA HIROJIKAR
Digitally signed AGE: 25 YEARS
by RENUKA OCC: HOUSE HOLD
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. ANUSHKA D/O LATE. BHOJAPPA HIROJIKAR
KARNATAKA
AGE: 06 YEARS, MINOR
3. VISHNU S/O LATE. BHOJAPPA HIROJIKAR
AGE: 04 YEARS, MINOR
(R-2 & 3 U/G OF MOTHER R1)
4. AMBARAYA S/O MALKAPPA HIROJIKAR
AGE: 58 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7964
MFA No. 201809 of 2019
5. LAXMIBAI W/O MALKAPPA HIROJIKAR
AGE: 53 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD
ALL R/O NEAR HARALAYYA SAMAJ
CHOTA ROZA, KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH .G, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS U/G OF R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2019
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.460/2017, IN THE INTERESET OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is filed by the Insurance
Company questioning the liability fastened on it by the
Tribunal while entertaining the petition filed by the
claimants under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel on record. Perused
the judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7964
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Insurance Company has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi vs. United India
Insurance Company1 to support their position. In this
judgment, the Apex Court provided a significant
interpretation of liability and compensation under Section
163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, establishing a clear
precedent for cases involving owners of vehicles who meet
with accidents while operating their own vehicles.
4. In the present case, the claimants have filed a
petition seeking compensation for the death of Bhojappa,
who was involved in a fatal road traffic accident on
18.12.2015. Bhojappa, the deceased, was driving a tractor
with registration number KA-32/T-6403/6404 at the time
of the accident. It is undisputed that Bhojappa was the
owner of the said tractor. In light of this fact, this Court is
inclined to view the Tribunal's judgment, which imposes
liability on the Insurance Company, as conflicting with the
AIR 2020 SC 527
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7964
legal principles established by the Apex Court in the
aforementioned case. According to the Supreme Court's
ruling, liability under the Insurance Company's policy
cannot be extended to cover claims made by the legal
heirs of a vehicle owner who was driving the vehicle at the
time of the accident.
5. Considering the legal position as articulated by
the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that
merely operating or using a vehicle does not establish
grounds for compensation under a claim petition filed by
the legal heirs of the deceased owner under Section 163A
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Apex Court has definitively
held that claims under Section 163A cannot be made by
the legal heirs of an owner who was at fault for the
accident. Consequently, the legal heirs of the owner are
not eligible to maintain a claim under this section of the
Act, if the deceased owner's negligence contributed to the
accident. Thus, in view of the Supreme Court's
interpretation of Section 163A as outlined in Ramkhiladi
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7964
vs. United India Insurance Company, this Court finds
that the Tribunal's decision to hold the Insurance Company
liable for compensation is unsustainable and must be set
aside.
6. Notwithstanding this position, the learned
counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
conceded that an additional premium was indeed collected
by the Insurance Company to cover personal risk
associated with the vehicle's operation. Therefore, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- to the surviving kin of the deceased owner.
This amount is in accordance with the personal accident
cover provided under the insurance policy, covering the
owner-driver's risk. Accordingly, this sum should be
directed to be paid to the deceased owner's kith and kin in
acknowledgment of the additional premium that was
specifically collected for this purpose.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7964
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed in MVC.No.460/2017 is modified and
compensation determined by the Tribunal is
hereby set aside.
(iii) However, the appellant/Insurance
Company shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization.
(iv) The amount in deposit shall be remitted to
the Tribunal to enable the claimants to
withdraw the same.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
