Bangalore District Court
Kamala vs Icici Lomb Gen Ins Co Ltd on 15 November, 2025
KABC020030972023
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
BENGALURU
(SCCH-17)
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 15th day of November, 2025
M.V.C.No.621/2023
Petitioners 1. Smt. Kamala,
W/o Late Thimmaiah,
Aged about 62 years.
2. Kum. Parimala,
D/o Late Thimmaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Both are R/at No.15,
Ground Floor, 1st stage,
7th main, Binny Layout,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru - 560040.
(By Sri.H.B. Somapur , Advt. )
V/s.
SCCH-17 2 MVC 621/2023
Respondents 1. M/s ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
By its Manager,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
Bangalore - 560001.
(Insurer of the Alto Car No.KA-02-
MB-1027)
(By Sri.Manoj Kumar M.R., Advt)
2. Smt. Bhanushree K.T.,
W/o Late Mohan B.,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.15, 1st floor,
7th main, Binny Layout,
M.C. Road, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560040.
(Exparte)
3. M/s ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
By its Manager,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
Bangalore - 560001.
(Insurer of the Toyota Innova Car
No.KA-02-MT-8001)
(By Smt.Padma S Uttur, Advt)
4. Sri. K.H. Shivaram,
S/o Honnegowda H.,
SCCH-17 3 MVC 621/2023
R/at No.27, 1st main,
1st cross Neharu road,
Girinagar BSK 3rd stage,
Bengaluru - 560085.
(Owner of the Toyota Innova Car
No.KA-02-MT-8001)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petition filed by the petitioners U/S 164 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the death of Usha K.T., in the road traffic accident dated 28.08.2022.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
On 28.08.2022 at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased Usha K.T. was driving the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02- MB-1027 along with Smt. Bhanushree on B.M. Road, near Gananguru village, Mandya District, at that time driver of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 was parked his car by covering the road (wrong side) SCCH-17 4 MVC 621/2023 without any indicator or signal and at the same time the deceased Usha K.T. who driving the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027 in order to avoid accident to the other vehicles on the busy road hit the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 which was parked on the road and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the deceased Usha K.T. sustained multiple fracture particularly head injury, due to loss of blood she succumbed to the accidental injuries.
Immediately the deceased was shifted to Srirangapatna Government hospital, wherein postmortem was conducted and the body was handed over to the petitioners and they have performed the cremation and other religious obsequious and spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the last rites and rituals of the deceased.
At the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 45 years, she was multi-talented and earning Rs.40,000/- per year. Due to the untimely SCCH-17 5 MVC 621/2023 death of deceased the petitioners being the mother and unmarried sister of deceased have lost their bread earner of the family.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are the insurer and owner of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027, the respondent No.3 and 4 are insurer and owner of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.
3. In spite of service of notice, the respondent No.2 and 4 have not appeared before the court, hence they have been placed exparte.
After service of notice the respondents No.1 and 3 have appeared through their respective counsels, and filed separate written statement.
Respondent No.1 - insurer of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027 appeared and filed written statement SCCH-17 6 MVC 621/2023 by denying the averments of the petition. Further contended that the driver/deceased of the insured Alto car drove the same without proper maintenance and causing inconvenience to the users of the road, Further contended that the insured Car had no valid registration, fitness certificate and maintenance of the said car. Further contended that there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(b) of MV Act. It has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Further it has denied the cause and manner of accident and also contended that the accident in question was caused due to the sole negligence of the deceased herself. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition against it.
Respondent No.3 - insurer of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 appeared and filed written statement by denying the involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident. Further contended that SCCH-17 7 MVC 621/2023 this accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased/driver of the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB- 1027. After through investigation police has filed the abated charge sheet under Sec.279, 337, 304(A) against the deceased/driver of the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02- MB-1027. Further contended that the owner of the offending Car has knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the driver who was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and hence violated the policy conditions and so also the driver of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027 not having the valid and effective driving licence. Further contended that there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(b) of MV Act. It has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Further it has denied the cause and manner of accident and also contended that the accident in question was caused due to the sole negligence of the deceased herself. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly SCCH-17 8 MVC 621/2023 excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No.3 prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues were framed by this court:
ISSUES Recasted issue No.1 as per order dated 04.08.2025.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Usha K.T. accident that occurred on 28.08.2022 at about 2.00 p.m. near B.M. Road, Gangaguru Village, Mandya District, due to the involvement of vehicle bearing No. KA-02-MT-8001?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.SCCH-17 9 MVC 621/2023
The first respondent examined its official as RW.1, and got marked one document at Ex.R.1. Further the third respondent has examined its official as RW2. Further first respondent examined its official as RW.3 and got marked one document at Ex.R2.
6. Heard the arguments of both side and perused the material available on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following citation:
1. 2025 ACJ 244 in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Urmila Halder.
2. MFA No.5130 2015 (MV-I) in between Syed Yaseen V/s. Nasreen Banu.
3. MFA No.9652/2013 C/w 9653/2013 (MV-D) in between H.Girish V/s. Pradeep Kumar Raju.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Recasted Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the affirmative,
Issue No.3: In the affirmative,
Issue No.4: As per the final orders
for the following.-
SCCH-17 10 MVC 621/2023
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the8 petition, the petitioner No.1 has filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of their claim, they have produced certified copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet and PM report which are marked as Ex.P1 to
6.
9. As per the documents, Ex.P1 FIR is registered on the basis of first information given by one Kum. Vyshnavi who reported the accident between the Alto Car and Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001. The first informant has stated that the deceased by driving her Alto car in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the parked Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02- MT-8001.
SCCH-17 11 MVC 621/2023
10. The respondent No.3 has denied the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and also denied the part of the negligence of the driver of the offending Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001. In the petition the petitioners pleaded that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of Innova Car bearing No.KA-02- MT-8001 who parked the car in the road. On perusal of Ex.P3 spot mahazar, it reveals the negligence of the deceased. The Ex.P4 is the IMV report wherein it is found that both the Alto car and the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 were got severe damages.
11. The Ex.P6 is the postmortem report which shows the injuries sustained by Kum. Usha K.T. and also evidentiates that the said Usha K.T. died due to the injuries sustained by her in the said accident.
Section 164 of the amended act provides that the owner of the vehicle or the insurer will have to pay Rs 5 SCCH-17 12 MVC 621/2023 lakh in case of death or Rs 2.5 lakh in case of grievous hurt to the victim.
Section 164 of MV Act, reads thus;
164. Payment of Compensation in case of death or grievous hurt etc (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 grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt 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 of the vehicle concerned or of any other person. SCCH-17 13 MVC 621/2023
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.
12. In the decision reported in 2020 ACJ 2552 In the Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, in between Chandrakanta Tiwari V/s New India Assurance Company Ltd., and another, it is held as follows;
"In this view of the matter, it is not relevant that the person insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have been riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in the death of the person driving the vehicle. The High Court, theretofore, is clearly wrong in stating that it was necessary under section 163-A to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which the death of the victim would take place."
In the decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1249 rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs SCCH-17 14 MVC 621/2023 Salma and others, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is held that;
"A petition under section 163-A of the Act is maintainable even in case where negligence is on part of the victim."
Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385 rendered in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Sono and others V/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd., it is held that;
"Section 163-A also covers the cases where negligence is even on part of the victim held excluding the defense of contributory negligence".
In Civil Appeal No.9694/2013 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Sunil Kumar and another, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that;
"In a proceedings under section 163-A of IMV Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on part of the victim."SCCH-17 15 MVC 621/2023
On a coalesce of the afore-quoted legal fresco and on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court the having regard to the crux of the dispute between the parties, the above principles are squarely applicable to the case on hand. For the said reasons, in a proceeding under section 163-A of the Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. There is no much different between 163-A of old Act and Sec.164 of new amended MV Act.
13. As per the provision and decision quoted above the petitioners, in order to claim compensation, need not be proved rash or negligent driving of any vehicle but it is sufficient to prove that deceased died in RTA and the involvement of the vehicle. The documentary as well as oral evidence of both parties prove that Kum. Usha K.T. died in the said road traffic accident by the involvement of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001. The SCCH-17 16 MVC 621/2023 respondent No.1 & 3 also not denied the death of Sri Usha K.T. in the said accident. The I.O . after detailed investigation filed charge sheet which also evidetiates the involvement of Alto car bearing No.KA.02-MB-1027 and Innova Car bearing No. KA-02-MT-8001. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 :-
14. As held herein above, the petitioner has proved that Usha K.T. died on 28.08.2022 due to the injuries sustained in RTA.
15. As contended in the petition the petitioners are the mother and unmarried sister of the deceased. The respondents do not specifically deny the relationship of petitioners with deceased. The petitioners to prove their relationship with deceased, have produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners and deceased, family tree and ration card which are marked under Ex.P8. During the course of recording the evidence the notarized SCCH-17 17 MVC 621/2023 copies of Aadhar cards, family tree and ration card are compared with the original documents and found correct. As per these documents the petitioners are the mother and unmarried sister of the deceased Kum.Usha K.T., but the respondents do not dispute the relationship of the petitioners with deceased. The respondents do not dispute the Aadhar cards produced by the petitioners. The respondent has not adduced any evidence to disprove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. As such the petitioners being the mother and unmarried sister of the deceased are entitled for the compensation. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
Issue No.3:
16. For the reasons discussed in issue No.1 the involvement of the Alto car bearing No.KA.02-MB-1027 and Innova Car bearing No. KA-02-MT-8001 of the respondent No.2 & 4 stands established and the death of Kum. Usha K.T. in the said accident is also established. SCCH-17 18 MVC 621/2023 The petitioners pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per year. but not produced any evidence in support of the same. Therefore, under these circumstances, petitioners being the Lrs of deceased is entitled for compensation. As per the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, the Section.164 of MV Act says that the payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt etc., (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 authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs of the victim, as the case may be.
17. If we see the Sec.164 of MV Act wherein it also state that (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or SCCH-17 19 MVC 621/2023 instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs of the victim, as the case may be.
18. In lieu of death of Kum. Usha K.T. due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident dated 28.08.2022 by the involvement of the Alto car bearing No.KA.02-MB-1027 and Innova Car bearing No. KA-02- MT-8001, as per amended second schedule, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-.
19. The leaned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 3 vehemently argued and contended that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased herself, as such the deceased being tortfeasor, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled for compensation. On this SCCH-17 20 MVC 621/2023 point the learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that as petition filed U/Sec.164 of MV Act the point of negligence cannot be consider and relied on the following judgments in support of their argument.
2025 ACJ 244 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Urmila Halder.
In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, by considering the amendment to Sec. 163-A of MV Act the compensation of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- can be granted retrospectively i.e., even if the accident had taken place even before the amendment.
MFA No. 5130/2015 (MV-I) between Syed Yaseen V/s. Nasreen Banu and others.
20. On reading the said section, it is no- fault liability. There is no need to prove the negligence of driver or rider of the vehicle. It is sufficient to prove involvement of the vehicle. It is true that, looking at the materials on record, the accident occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the claimant. On that count, the claim petition cannot be dismissed because it was not necessary to plead or prove as to who was responsible for the accident. It is sufficient to prove involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant and hence, he is not entitled to compensation is not tenable and calls for interference.
SCCH-17 21 MVC 621/2023
********
22. If he assesses the compensation under the provision of 163-A of the Act, it is necessary for the claimant to prove that he has suffered permanent disability. But under Section 164 of the MV Act, it does not say that proving permanent disability is required. If we compare the Section 163-A and 164 of the MV Act, more or less they are similar. Under Section 164-C, the Central Government has to make rules regarding the implementation of the said provision. It appears so far any such rules have not been framed by the Central Government and published it. Therefore, unless the Rules are framed specifying guidelines to assess the compensation or interpretation of the provision of Section 164 of MV Act, it has to be followed as it exists.
******* ******* *********
26. The claim petition is not maintainable against respondent Nos.1 and 2, since they are owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-MP-5786, in which the claimant was the driver. As per the law laid down in the Ramkhiladi (supra) case, he cannot claim compensation against his owner and insurer. He is not third party. Hence, claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not maintainable.
MFA No. 9653/2013 ( MV-D) between H.Girish and another V/s. Pradeep Kumar Raju and another.
SCCH-17 22 MVC 621/2023
"7. Having heard the counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The first issue with regard to the liability the finding of the tribunal cannot be sustained. It is not a case of an application under section 166 of MV Act but it is under section 163-A of MV Act where the involvement of the vehicle and the accident are only important but not the negligence. Once the vehicle is involved, Insurance Company is bound to pay the compensation. In that view of the above matter this court holds that the respondent No.2/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Then coming to the quantum of the compensation in the light of the amendment to section 163- A of MV Act and in light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Halder referred supra the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each".
Thereby when the petition are filed U/Sec. 164 of MV Act it is not fault liability and there is not need to prove the negligence of driver of the other vehicle. Section 164 is a newly inserted provision that deals with the payment of compensation in cases of death or grievous injuries on a 'No Fault Liability' basis. Under this section, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is prescribed for death and Rs. 2,50,000/- for grievous hurt, without the need to SCCH-17 23 MVC 621/2023 prove the negligence of the driver. The Second Schedule of the 1988 Act, which previously provided a structured formula for no-fault compensation under Section 163A, has been removed. Further, upon accepting compensation under Section 164, the claimant is barred from claiming additional compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amendment and introduction of Sec. 164 of MV Act introduced two major changes. First, it removed the earlier income cap of ₹40,000/- per annum, which limited claims under Section 163A. Second, it replaced the structured formula compensation system with a fixed amount of compensation ₹5,00,000/- in case of death and ₹2,50,000/- in case of grievous hurt. Thereby the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 3 in respect of the answers given by the PW.1 about income of the deceased does not holds any water.
20. In this case as per the charge sheet the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. But SCCH-17 24 MVC 621/2023 on that ground the claim petition cannot be dismissed because it is not necessary to plead or to prove who was responsible for the accident. Mere involvement of the vehicles is sufficient to claim the compensation U/Sec. 164 of MV Act.
21. Admittedly the respondent No.3 is the insurer and the respondent No.4 is the owner of the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001, which dashed by the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027. The deceased was the inmate of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027. The claim petition is not maintainable against the respondent No. 1 and 2 sicne they are the owner and insurer of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027 in which the deceased was driving. As per the law laid down in the case of Ram Kiladi and another V/s United India Insurance Company and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 the Lrs of deceased cannot claim compensation against his owner and insurer. The deceased not become third party.
SCCH-17 25 MVC 621/2023
22. Under Sec. 164 of IMV Act, the involvement is sufficient to claim the compensation and need not be established the fact of negligence. Hence even though the charge sheet is filed against the deceased and also alleges the driving of the car by the deceased does not holds water when petition is filed U/Sec.164 of IMV Act. It is very important to note that the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027 and Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 both are insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. Hence the respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, Issue No.3 answered In the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4:
23. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-17 26 MVC 621/2023
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondent.
The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
The petitioners are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 80:20 Considering the quantum awarded to petitioners, it is ordered to release the entire amount in their favour.
Advocate fee is fixed at 2,500/-.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 15th day of November, 2025).
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT, BANGALORE.
SCCH-17 27 MVC 621/2023ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Smt. Kamala List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 Spot mahazar Ex.P4 IMV report Ex.P5 Charge sheet Ex.P6 PM report Ex.P7 Notarized copy of death certificate Ex.P8 Notarized copies of 3 Aadhaar cards Ex.P9 Notarized copy of family tree Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Ration card
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW.1 Swathi M. RW.2 Anagha RW.3 Roshni Ashwitha
List of documents exhibited on respondent's side:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 C/c of Judgment in MVC No. 1236/2023.
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& MACT, BANGALORE.
Digitally signed by
KANCHI KANCHI
MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date: 2025.11.28
12:19:31 +0530