Karnataka High Court
Sri N Raju vs Sri Harish Kumar V on 26 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2121
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A NOs.2129/2012 C/W 35/2012
MFA NO.2129/2012
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI N RAJU
S/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED 51 YEARS
2 . SMT MANJULA
W/O N RAJU
AGED 41 YEARS
3 . KUM REKHA R
D/O N RAJU
AGED 21 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.101,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS,
GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
RAMANNA LAYOUT,
NANDHINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560096 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.N.HARISH BABU & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI HARISH KUMAR V
AGED MAJOR
NO.43, 7TH MAIN,
2
9TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK,
NANDHINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560096.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
YATHI RAJ MUTT BLDG,
1ST FLOOR, NO.199,
NEAR 11TH CROSS,
SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE 560 003. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/C
R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.8.2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO.5497/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT, MEMBER
MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. NO.35/2012
BETWEEN
THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE,
YATHIRAJ MUTT BLDG.
1ST FLOOR, NO.199,
NEAR 11TH CROSS,
SAMPIGE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560004
BY ITS
THE ORIENTAL INSURAN CO.,LTD.,
NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
3
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER. ...APPELLANT
(By SRI P B RAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI N RAJU
S/O. LATE. NARAYANA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2 . SMT. MANJULA
W/O. LATE N.RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
3 . KUM. REKHA R
D/O. N.RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.101,
2ND CROSS, GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
RAMANA LAYOUT,
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 096.
4 . SRI. HARISH KUMAR V.
NO.43, 7TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 096. ... RESPONDENTS
(R1 - R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.8.2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO.5497/2008 ON THE FILE OF XXI ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT, MEMBER,
MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
4
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA.No.2129/2012 is by the claimants while MFA.No.35/2012 is by the insurance company.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, R.Suresh while riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EX-6534 along with the pillion rider hit a pedestrian who suddenly came on to the road and as a result, due to the collision R.Suresh the rider suffered serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to them. The father, wife and sister of the deceased - R.Suresh filed a claim petition seeking for compensation under the structured formula under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short).
3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the application/petition under Section 163A could not be 5 maintained in view of the fact that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. However, the Tribunal invoked Section 140 of the MV Act and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the principle of "no fault liability".
4. It is against this award that the insurance company is in appeal contending that it is not at all liable. The claimants are also in appeal seeking for compensation as per the structured formula.
5. It is now settled law that under Section 163A, the tort feasor cannot himself maintain a claim petition and seek compensation for his own negligence. Consequently, the dismissal of the claim petition under Section 163A cannot be found fault with and is affirmed.
6. As far as the appeal of the insurance company is concerned, it is also settled law that even in the proceedings under Section 163A the principle of no fault liability as provided under Section 140 can be invoked 6 and compensation as provided therein can be awarded. In view of the said settled position of law, the appeal of the insurance company should also fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
As a result, both the appeals stand dismissed. The amount in deposit shall stand transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement of the award amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd