Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Sundari on 7 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10926
MFA No. 10448 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10448 OF 2012
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9510 OF 2012 (MV)
IN MFA NO. 10448 / 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SUDHAKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2. PRABHAKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. RATHNAKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
Digitally 4. SHANKAR SHETTY
signed by AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
SUVARNA T
Location: 5. VASANTHA SHETTY
HIGH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
COURT OF NOTE: APPELLANT NO.5 DIED DURING THE
KARNATAKA PENDENCY OF CLAIM PETITION
ALL ARE THE CHILDREN SUBBANNA SHETTY
RESIDENT AT NANDROLLI
NORAINBAILU, BELLALA VILLAGE
MOODUMUNDA POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10926
MFA No. 10448 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
AND:
1. Y KARUNAKARA SHETTY
MAJOR
S/O LATE BHUJANGA SHETTY
R/O PRAGATHI NAGAR
CHANTHARU VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
VISHNU PRAKASH, II FLOOR
COURT ROAD, UDUPI
REP BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI.K. PRASAD HEGDE.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. UMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2;)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED21.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.884/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ND
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA,PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 9510 / 2012
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-01
REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SRI. D. KARTHIKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:10926
MFA No. 10448 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
AND:
1. SMT SUNDARI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
W/O VASUDEVA NAYAK
SINCE DEAD REP. BY R2 & R3
2. SRI. SURAJ S. NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O LATE SARVOTHAM NAYAK
3. SRI. VASUDEVA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O LATE GOVINDA NAYAK
R/AT NO.6-35, " SHIVA KRIPA NILAYA" NEAR BUS
STAND, PARKALA MAIN ROAD, UDUPI TALUK &
DISTRICT
4. SMT. RAJI NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O LATE SARVOTHAM NAYAK,
R/AT "" SHIVA KRIPA NILAYA" NEAR BUS STAND,
PARKALA MAIN ROAD, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT
5. SRI. B. RAMESH KINI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O B. RAGHAVENDRA KINI,
" MAHALASA NILAYA ", NEAR GOVT. PRE-
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
BAILOOR, KARKALA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT
(OWNER OF CAR NO.KA-20/N-4933)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S K ACHARYA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
V/O DTD:14.08.2019 R2 & R3 ARE TREATEDAS LR'S OF R1;
R5 - NOTICE D/W V/O DTD: 14.12.2012)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED30.5.2012 PASSED IN MVC
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:10926
MFA No. 10448 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
NO.1438/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF 2,00,100/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA NO.10448/2012 (CLAIMANT APPEAL):
Aggrieved by the award dated 21.07.2012, passed in MVC No.884/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, at Kundapura, whereby the court has absolved the insurance company from liability and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/- the claimants are before this court questioning both the liability and the quantum.
2. The claim petition was filed u/s. 163-A of MV Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,28,000/- . It is the case of the claimants that on 10.05.2006 at 8.30 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle, along with a pillion rider. At that time a Mahindra -5- NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 Maxi cab driver driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. According to them the deceased was hale and healthy and was running a general store. Initially the claimants have filed the petition u/s.166 of MV Act. Later they have converted the same to Section-163-A of MV Act. In the initial petition, it is stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month. Thereafter filed the amendment petition and converted the application to Section-163-A of MV Act and they have restricted the income to Rs.40,000/- per annum and the amendment was allowed. The insurance company has filed the counter stating that as on the date of the accident the vehicle was insured but the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and it is their case that due to the negligence of the deceased himself the accident has occurred, without giving any indication the deceased suddenly went to the wrong side of the road -6- NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 and dashed against the left side of the maxi cab and the driver has tried his level best to avoid the accident. Even the police documents show that due to the negligence of the deceased the accident occurred and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the tort- feaser.
3. In case of pillion rider i.e., MVC No.888/2006, it is held that the rider of the motorcycle was solely liable for the accident and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Though originally the petition was filed u/s. 166 of MV Act, later the petition was amended to Section-163-A and the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were made as proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. The Court Below has dealt with the contention of the insurance company that the MVC No.888/2006 filed by the pillion rider of the motorcycle and held that because of the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle rider i.e., the deceased the accident has occurred and the said judgment was not challenged and it -7- NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 has attained finality. Since the petition is arising out of the same accident, the finding is binding on the claimants also. While considering this the Court Below has observed that though the petition is filed u/s. 166 and now it has been converted to Section-163-A and hence the court need not consider the negligent aspect. Admittedly in the accident, two vehicles are involved i.e., motor cycle and a maxi cab. The rider of the motorcycle was seriously injured and hence it is held that inspite of the fact that the deceased was responsible for the accident, he is entitled for the compensation. When it comes to the compensation the Court Below had granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and further the driver of the maxi cab had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the cab was used for carrying 18 passengers. It is a transport vehicle and the driver has no driving license to drive the vehicle and the respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and it is the owner who is alone liable to pay the compensation. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the compensation that was awarded by the tribunal was not just and reasonable. It is submitted that the driver of the maxi cab was having driving license to drive non-transport (light motor vehicle) and the same was not considered. It is also submitted that the Court Below considering the order in case of a pillion rider i.e., MVC No.888/2006 adopted the same principle and without any justifiable reason has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the Court Below failed to give the findings on Section 163-A of the MV Act which came into force to provide adequate compensation to the victims of the road accident without going into the long drawn procedure u/s.163, which is the structured formula to assess the damages. It is submitted that the amount which is awarded is not a reasonable amount and also holding that the owner is liable but not the insurer is contrary to law and is liable to be set-aside. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that initially the petition is filed U/s.166 wherein the claimants have taken a stand that the income of the deceased is Rs.3,300/- and later they have amended the petition to section-163-A. It is submitted that in the light of the law laid down in the DEEPAL GIRISH BAI SONI vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED1 whose income is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, cannot file a petition u/s. 163-A. The question of capping the income or scaling down the income is not permissible. Now the records shows that because of the negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle the accident had taken place. Already the tribunal has given a finding in the MVC filed by the pillion rider i.e., MVC No.888/2006 that the deceased himself is tort-feaser, he is the not entitled for compensation u/s.163-A or 166 of the MV Act.
1 AIR 24 SC 2107
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. In this case the evidence on record shows that because of the negligence on the part of the deceased the accident has taken place. In case of pillion rider the tribunal has given a finding which has attained finality as no appeal is filed. The police records also shows that it is because of the negligence on the part of the deceased that the accident has occurred. First and foremost a tort-feaser is not entitled for compensation either under Sections-163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On that ground alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it is appropriate to look at the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEEPAL GIRISH BAI SONI's referred to supra. The question that was referred to the Full Bench was, whether under Section-163-A of MV Act is a final proceedings or it is interim proceedings in respect of a petition filed under Section-166 of the MV Act are final
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section-140 of the MV Act provides for interim relief and both the petition under Sections-163-A and 166 of MV Act are final proceedings. Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the view taken in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY CO. LTD. VS. HANSRAJBHAI Vs. KODALA AND OTHERS (KODALA)2. In the Hon'ble Apex Court at para - 66 and 67 has observed as follows:
"66. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for example, "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "any other law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes to show that Parliament intended to insert a non obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of 2 2001 (5) SCC 175
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of.
67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala' has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala¹ that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs 40,000 per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs 40,000 can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically observed that if a person invokes the provision under Section-163-A of the MV Act the annual income of Rs.40,000/- p.a., shall be treated as a cap which was decided in KODALA'S case referred to supra. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the proceedings under
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 Section-163-A of MV Act being a social security provision providing for a distinct scheme only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof and all other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter-11 of the Act. Thereafter a Division Bench of this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. ANITHA AND OTHERS3 by applying the ratio in the case of DEEPAL GIRISH BAI SONI's case has held that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the petition u/s.163-A of MV Act, by scaling down the annual income from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- as to bring the case within the purview of Section-163A and allowed the appeal of the insurance company. Later another Division Bench in the case of SARAHBAI ALIAS SHARADA AND ANOTHER VS. P. SAHEBKHAN AND OTHERS4 also affirmed the view. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEEPAL GIRISH BHAI SONI referred supra the legal 3 ILR 2007 KAR 28 4 2006 ACJ 2009
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 position is very clear that a person whose income is above Rs.40,000/- cannot maintain an application under Section- 163-A of MV Act.
9. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEEPAL GIRISH BHAI SONI's case referred to supra, a person whose income is above Rs.40,000/- cannot file an application under Section-163-A of the MV Act and the question of capping it to Rs.40,000/- is not permissible. It would be contrary to the purport of Section-163-A of the MV Act. In this case unfortunately the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal. Hence, this court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal of the claimant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is Dismissed. MFA NO.9510/2012 (IC-Appeal) :
10. Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.1438/2008, dated 30.05.2012, by the Additional Senior
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 Civil Judge And Additional MACT at Udupi, whereby the court below has granted an amount of Rs.2,00,100/-, as compensation the insurance company is before this Court.
11. The claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act for brevity) seeking an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The case of the claimants is that on 24.08.2008, the deceased was driving Omni Car from Hiriadka side to Udupi, when he reached near Ontibettu, Anjar Village, at about 2.30 p.m., one Hyundai car which was driven by its driver from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Omni car. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. According to the claimants the deceased was working as a driver and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Thereafter the claimants amended the petition by stating the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.3,300/- p.m.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 the petition was allowed. The Court Below in the order has observed that the income has been scaled down to Rs.3,300/- p.m., in order to bring the petition under Section-163-A of the MV Act. Considering the evidence Court had granted a total compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,100/- holding that Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved thereby the insurance company is before this Court.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the Court Below committed a grave error in allowing I.A.No.5 permitting the claim petition to be amended from Section-166 to Section-163-A of MV Act. After conclusion of the trial, the claimants had pleaded and deposed that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,20,000/-. It is argued that the amendment would cause prejudice to the defence of the insurance company which could not have been allowed. It is stated that the application which was filed under Section-163A of MV Act for a person who is having income more than Rs.40,000/-
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 per annum, is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEEPAL GIRISH BAI SONI vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED5 and the judgment of this court in the case of BMTC vs. LAKSHMAMMA AND OTHERS6. It is further stated that even a petition under Section-163-A of the MV Act is one filed under 'fault liability' and the insurance company is entitled to take the defence that the accident has happened because of the negligence of the deceased. It is submitted that the documents produced and admitted in the evidence of claimants as Exhibits-P1 and P6 prove that the accident in question occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. It is further submitted that the observation of the court below that in a petition filed under Section-163A of the MV Act, there is no necessity to prove the negligence and hence the question of giving any finding on whose negligence the accident occurred will not arise is not legal. After investigation, the Police have filed 5 AIR 24 SC 2107 6 ILR 2007 KAR 4488
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 the charge-sheet against the deceased it is submitted that a tort-feaser himself cannot claim compensation either under Section-163-A or Section-166 of the MV Act.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the claimants have amended the prayer and though it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however, they have sought amendment from Rs.10,000/- and they have mentioned it as Rs.3,300/- per month, which is very much within Rs.40,000/- per annum. As such, he can maintain an application and the court below had rightly considered all these aspects and granted the compensation.
14. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, the issue that falls for consideration before this court is :
"Whether a person who is earning an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum can scale down the income below Rs.40,000/- per annum and can
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 maintain an application under Section-163-A of the MV Act?
ii. Whether a person who is a Tort-feaser himself is entitled for compensation under Section-163-A of the MV Act?
15. To consider the rival contentions of the parties it is appropriate to look at the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEEPAL GIRISHBHAI SONI referred supra. The question that was referred to the Full Bench was, whether under Section-163-A of MV Act is a final proceedings or it is interim proceedings in respect of a petition filed under Section-166 of the MV Act are final proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section-140 of the MV Act provides for interim relief and both the petition under Sections-163-A and 166 of MV Act are final proceedings. Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the view taken in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY CO. LTD. VS. HANSRAJBHAI Vs. KODALA
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 AND OTHERS (KODALA)7. In the Hon'ble Apex Court at para - 66 and 67 has observed as follows:
"66. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for example, "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "any other law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes to show that Parliament intended to insert a non obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of.7
2001 (5) SCC 175
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012
67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala' has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala¹ that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs 40,000 per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs 40,000 can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically observed that if a person invokes the provision under Section-163-A of the MV Act the annual income of Rs.40,000/- p.a., shall be treated as a cap which was decided in KODALA'S case referred to supra. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the proceedings under Section-163-A of MV Act being a social security provision providing for a distinct scheme only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof and all other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter-11 of the Act. Thereafter a Division
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 Bench of this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. ANITHA AND OTHERS8 by applying the ratio in the case of DEEPAL GIRISH BAI SONI's case has held that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the petition u/s.163-A of MV Act, by scaling down the annual income from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- as to bring the case within the purview of Section-163A and allowed the appeal of the insurance company. Later another Division Bench in the case of SARAHBAI ALIAS SHARADA AND ANOTHER VS. P. SAHEBKHAN AND OTHERS9 also affirmed the view. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DEEPAL GIRISH BHAI SONI referred supra the legal position is very clear that a person whose income is above Rs.40,000/- cannot maintain an application under Section- 163-A of MV Act. In the claim petition when it is stated that the income is above Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of maintaining the application under Section-163-A MV Act, 8 ILR 2007 KAR 28 9 2006 ACJ 2009
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 there cannot be any scaling down or cap on the income and the same is not permissible. In this case initially according to the claimant the income of the deceased is Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and now for the purpose of this petition they have scaled it down to Rs.3,300/- per month and Rs.39,000/- per annum., which is not permissible and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the same, the Tribunal erred in allowing the amendment and by granting the relief under Section-163- A of the MV Act. Hence, the first issue is answered in favour of the insurance company.
17. Coming to the second issue, the evidence on record clearly discloses that the FIR is registered against the deceased. Exhibits-P2 and P3 are the copies of the complaint and spot mahazar. Exhibit-P6 is the charge sheet, after investigation the Police have laid the charge sheet against the deceased. The Court Below having appreciated these facts has observed that there is no necessity to prove the negligence and the question of
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 giving a finding on whose negligence this accident occurred do not arise when a petition is filed under Section-163-A had granted the compensation. This finding of the Court Below is contrary to the settled law. When a petition is filed under Section-166 of the MV Act, the person who claims compensation has to prove that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle opposite driver and the accident has occurred because of his negligence. Whereas the present petition was filed under Section-163A of MV Act, here the involvement of the vehicle is sufficient and the claimant need not prove the negligence of the driver of the opposite vehicle. But both under Sections-163-A and 166, the tort-feaser himself cannot maintain application in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMKHILADI vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY10 as the charge-sheet is filed against the deceased when the deceased himself is the tort-feaser he 10 2020 (2) SCC 550
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 is not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly this issue is also answered in favour of the insurance company.
18. In the light of the above findings the appeal of the Insurance Company is Allowed by setting-aside the award dated 30.05.2012 in MVC No.1438/2008, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge And Additional MACT at Udupi.
i) The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.10448/2012 is Dismissed.
ii) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No. 9510 OF 2012 is Allowed holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
iii) The Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit.
iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10926 MFA No. 10448 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 9510 of 2012 copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
v) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/-
JUDGE JJ