Bangalore District Court
Savithramma vs Guruvireddy on 3 April, 2025
KABC020148002020
IN THE COURT OF XXIII ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH-25)
Dated this the 3rd day of April - 2025
Present: Sri. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
C/c XXIII ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.3617/2020
Petitioners 1. Smt. Savithramma
W/o. Late Mahesha
Aged about 29 years
2. Master Neelakanta
S/o. Late Mahesh,
Aged about 7 years,
Rep. By minor Son
Natural Guardian of Mother.
3. Mery
D/o Late Mahesh,
Aged about 5 years,
Rep. by minor daughter
natural guardian of Mother.
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3617/2020
All are R/at
Basavarajapura,
Beluru Talluku,
Cheelanaikanahalli,
Hassan District - 573 121.
(By Pleader M.N.Nandini Urs.)
V/s
Respondents 1. Mrs. Reddy Ambati Venkata Shiv
Reddy
S/o Gurvireddy,
No.1-630-6B, CPI Colony,
Tadiptri, Anantapur Dist.
Andrapradesh - 515 411.
(Ex-parte)
2. Cholamandalam MS General Ins.
Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.56, 4th Main Road,
Rajajinagar 1st Block,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(By Pleader Sri. S.Maheshwara)
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petition filed by the petitioners U/S 163-A of M.V. Act, claiming SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3617/2020 compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of Mahesh @ Marabovi in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
On 09.11.2019 at about 07.30 p.m., the deceased was riding the motor bike bearing No.KA-09-KH-4776 along with his friend on Halebeedu Basavarajapura Road, when he reached near Jodithippanahalli Village a Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655 came with high speed in a rash and negligent to over take opposite vehicle, took left and hit against the deceased's motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased along with his friend fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased Mahesh was shifted to Hassan Govt. Hospital. The doctor advised to take him NIMHANS, Bengaluru. Thereafter he was shifted to Victoria Hospital for further treatment, admitted as an inpatient for 2 days. But he was not recovery and died on SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3617/2020 12.11.2019 at about 8.00am. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Coolie and earning Rs.40,000/-
p.a. and he was contributing his entire income to his family. Due to the untimely death of deceased the petitioners have suffered mentally, physically and they have lost their bread earner.
The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the minor children of the deceased Mahesh @ Marabovi, have lost their beloved care taker. The respondents are the owner and insurer of the offending Lorry are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.
3. In response to the notice the Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence placed exparte.
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3617/2020
4. This respondent denied entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-02-TE-2655 in favour of the 1 st Respondent. There is a non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It has denied the manner of accident and involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Further contended that the driver of the Lorry was no way responsible for the alleged accident. Further, there was non joinder of necessary parties to the petition. Further contended that the deceased was not wearing helmet as on the date of accident. The driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655 was not holding valid and effective DL and also the vehicle did not possess valid Permit and FC as on the date of accident. It has denied the realtionship of the petitioners with the deceased. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3617/2020 and exorbitant. Hence the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition against it.
5. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues were framed by this court:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Mahesh @ Marabovi?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-02-TE-2655 as a result Sri.Mahesh @ Marabovi sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
4. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the claim petition, first petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked the SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3617/2020 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. They have also got examined one eye witness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.10. The 2nd respondent examined its official as RW.1 and got marked documents Ex.R1 & 2.
7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material evidence that is available on record. At the time of argument it is found that the issue is framed on the point of negligence also. But the petition is filed under Sec.163-A of IMV Act wherein the trial is very limited regarding the use of motor vehicle. Hence, the issue No.2. Is recasted as below;
Whether the petitioners proves that deceased Mahesh @ Marabok S/o. Moogabovi died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.11.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. near Jodithippanahalli Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Basavarajapura due to the involvement of Lorry bearing No. AP-02-TE-2655?
8. My findings on the above issues are as under. SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3617/2020
Recasted Issue No.2: In the affirmative, Issue No.1: In the affirmative, Issue No.3: In the affirmative, Issue No.4: As per final orders for the following.-
REASONS RECASTED ISSUE NO.2:
9. The petitioners to prove their claim have produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, PM report, MVA report and charge sheet which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 7.
10. The Ex.P1 to P7 are belongs to the documents of Crime No.170/2019 of Halebeedu Police In Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 complaint given to the Halebeedu police it shows the involvement of the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655 in the accident. After the registration of FIR as per Ex.P.1 the investigation is conducted and the charge sheet as per Ex.P7 came to be filed on the rider/deceased of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-09-K-4776. Ex.P4 inquest report and Ex.P5 SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3617/2020 is post mortem report wherein these two documents establishes the death of one Late Mahesh @ Marabovi due to Head injury sustained by him in road traffic accident dated 09.11.2019.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance company has taken two major defences firstly is the involvement of Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655 is disputed and secondly the charge sheet is filed against the deceased himself. As such, he is not entitled for compensation.
12. It is very important to note that the present petition is filed under Sec. 163-A of IMV Act, wherein the fact of negligence has no role to play. The involvement of vehicle is sufficient to grant the compensation in the petitions filed under Sec. 163-A of IMV Act.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3617/2020
13. If we consider the contents of Ex.P1, the Ex.P1 complaint came to be registered on 12.11.2019 at 12.30 p.m. wherein, in the first information they have alleged that while the deceased along with one Moogabovi were proceeding in the left side of the Halebeedu-Beluru road they were hit by the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655. In the said Ex.P1 first information it is alleged that the accident is caused on 09.11.2019 between 19.30 to 19.45. Hence, the first information was lodged after lapse of 4 days. Thereafter the investigation officer has conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P4 is conducted and also the IMV report as per Ex.P.6 was also prepared. The IMV report marked at Ex.P.6 shows damages on the rare side of the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE- 2655. Ex.P7 is charge sheet filed by the police by alleging the rash and negligent driving by the deceased and also after investigation the IO has found the involvement of Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655 in the said accident. SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3617/2020
14. As already discussed above, the present petition is filed under Se. 163-A of IMV Act, wherein the involvement of vehicle is sufficient and no need to examine the fact of negligence. The charge sheet as per Ex.P.7 and Mahazar as per Ex.P.3 along with the contents of Ex.P.6 IMV report establishes the involvement of Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE- 2655 in the accident. The death of Mahesh @ Marabovi is also not disputed by the respondent No.2.
15. First respondent is exparte and has not chosen to file written statement. Though the second respondent filed statement of objection and denied the claim of the petitioners, further second respondent contended that the accident was due to negligence on the part of deceased himself it shows that the accident and death of deceased Mahesh due to the accidental injuries is not in dispute.
16. As per well settled position of law the standard of proof in claim petition like present one, is only SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3617/2020 preponderance of probabilities. Looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioners there are sufficient materials to show that, Mahesh died due to the accidental injuries.
17. Whereas the petitioners have filed this petition under section 163-A of MV Act, I refer the said provision which reads thus;
[163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.--
(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 permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3617/2020 claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. ]
18. 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, where in it is held as fallows; "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."
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3617/2020
19. For the reasons discussed above and also by applying the above quoted precedents, the present issue is answered affirmative by holding that Mahesh @ Marabovi S/o. Moogabovi died due to the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.11.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. on Halebeedur to Basvarajapura Road, near Jodithippanahalli Village due to the involvement of Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655 which belonging to respondent No.1. Accordingly recasted Issued No.2 answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.1
20. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Mahesh @ Marabovi died on 12.11.2019 due to the injuries sustained in RTA.
21. As contended in the petition the petitioners are the wife and minor children of the deceased Mahesh @ Marabovi. The petitioners have produced notarized copy of Ration Card SCCH-25 15 MVC No.3617/2020 and notarized copies of Aadhar cards of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 which are marked under Exs.P.8 & 9. These documents shown that deceased Mahesh @ Marabovi is the husband of first petitioner and the father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3. The respondents do not dispute the relationship of petitioners and deceased. These documentary evidence is not impeached on behalf respondents. I have no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioners about the relationship with the deceased. So the petitioners being the dependents of deceased, are entitled for compensation. Accordingly Issue No.1 is also answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:
22. The accident took place on 09.11.2019. It is the case of the respondent No.2 insurance company that as the accident is caused by the negligence of the deceased, their legal heirs are not entitled for the compensation. Accordingly, if we perused the Ex.P7 final report the IO has SCCH-25 16 MVC No.3617/2020 opined that the accident is caused by the negligence of the deceased himself.
23. There is no separate or independent evidence placed before this tribunal to hold the negligence of the Lorry. But at the cost of repetition it is already held that the fact of negligence has no bearing while adjudicating the claim petitions filed under Sec. 163-A. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.
24. In the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC) in between Ningamma and another Vs United India Insurance Co., Ltd., "So a person cannot be both a claimant as also a recipient,with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of section 163-A of the M.V.Act. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the SCCH-25 17 MVC No.3617/2020 deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motor bike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motor bike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner and,therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motor bike."
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2020 ACJ 627 in between Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., and another, held as follows:
"5.8. However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner - driver is entitled to a sum of ₹.1,00,000/-.Therefore, the deceased, as observed herein above, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of ₹.1,00,000/- even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the second schedule and a fixed amount of ₹.5,00,000/- has been specified in case of death and, therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to SCCH-25 18 MVC No.3617/2020 ₹.5,00,000/-. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court on 10.05.2018 i.e., much prior to the amendment in the second schedule. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the second schedule. At the same time, as observed herein above, the claimants shall be entitled to₹.1,00,000/- as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle."
"as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner,except to the extent of ₹.1,00,000/-as observed herein above."
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 8300/2011 in between The United India Insurance Company SCCH-25 19 MVC No.3617/2020 Limited vs. Smt. N. Praveena and others wherein Hon'ble High Court held that: -
"28. As discussed at para 24 and 25, the petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable against the respondents 1 and 2.
Therefore,petitioners in MVC No. 491/2010 are not entitled for any compensation under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. However, in the light of Ex.R1, as per the terms of the contract of insurance between respondent No.1 and 2,respondent No.2 is liable to pay a sum of ₹.1,00,000/-covering the personal accident claim of the owner/driver, as the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner in his capacity as the borrower of the offending vehicle."
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.22058/2011 C/W MFA21929/2011 between The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Sri. Tushar and others wherein it is held as follows: - SCCH-25 20 MVC No.3617/2020
"28. In terms of the afore-extracted law laid down by the Apex Court, it becomes unmistakably clear that the rider of the vehicle, if he is not the owner,but has borrowed the vehicle from the owner steps into the shoes of the owner and would be entitled to compensation only to the extent of the contract between the owner and the insurer."
25. Further in the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 525-2023 (MV-D) between M/s. ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s. Sri. Shankar Jyothi @ Jyothi P. and others, wherein it is held that the rider stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and as per the policy there is a personal accident coverage and as such, he is entitled to the personal accident coverage, but not to the compensation as determined by the court below.
26. In the present case even the official of respondent No.2 insurance company as RW.1 is examined by denying SCCH-25 21 MVC No.3617/2020 their liability. The RW.1 produced the copy of policy as per Ex.R.2 which shows that the offending Lorry bearing No.AP- 02-TE-2655 was duly insured with the respondent No.2 company at the time of accident.
27. For the reasons discussed in issue No.2 the involvement of the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655 of the respondent No. 1 in the accident is stands established and the death of Sri.Mahesh in the said accident is also established. The petitioners pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a. 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 SCCH-25 22 MVC No.3617/2020 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.
28. In lieu of death of Mahesh due to the injuries sustained by him the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-. Admittedly the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-TE-2655, to which the deceased has dashed his bike.
29. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the tort- feasor is not entitled for the compensation under Sec. 163-A of IMV Act. But under Sec. 163-A of IMV Act, the involvement is sufficient to claim SCCH-25 23 MVC No.3617/2020 the compensation and need not be established the fact of negligence. Hence the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, Issue No.3 answered partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4-
30. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners No.1 to 3 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.SCCH-25 24 MVC No.3617/2020
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
The petitioner No.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- each and remaining compensation amount is directed to be released along with interest to the petitioner No.1.
Considering the quantum of awarded to petitioner No.1, it is ordered to release the entire amount in her favour.
The entire amount awarded to petitioner No.2 & 3 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in their names in any Scheduled Bank, till they attain the age of majority.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 3 rd day of April, 2025).
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) C/c XXIII ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM, BANGALORE.
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.3617/2020ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW.1 Smt.Savithramma PW.2 Sri. Gangaswamy
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of FIS
Ex.P3 True copy of spot panchanama
Ex.P4 True copy of Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P5 True copy of PM report
Ex.P6 True copy of MVA report
Ex.P7 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Ration Car
Ex.P9 Notarized copies of Aadhar Cards of
petitioners 2 and 3
Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
Witness
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW.1 Kruthi Shree N. SCCH-25 26 MVC No.3617/2020 List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Authorization Letter
Ex.R2 Copy of Insurance
C/c XXIII ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& ACJM, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by KANCHI
KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date:
2025.04.17
13:48:45 +0530