Bangalore District Court
Ramalakshmamma vs Hdfc Ergo General Ins Co Ltd on 17 April, 2025
KABC020116582023
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
AND, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7)
Dated this the 17th day of April - 2025
Before: Sri. SHYAM PRAKASH
B.A.L, LLB.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.2572/2023
Petitioners : Ramalakshmamma,
W/o Late K. Ramaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at Hosa Colony,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri.R.Chandra Shekhar
Advocate)
V/s
Respondents :1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Co., Ltd., 2nd Floor, No.25/1,
Building No.2,
Shankaranarayana Building,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy No.2312910172249400000
valid from 29.03.2022 to
28.03.2027)
(By Sri. Madhu Kiran, Advocate)
SCCH - 7 2 MVC No.2572/2023
2. Manjunatha. T.R.,
S/o Late K. Ramaiah,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at Hosa Colony,
Thyamagondlu Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(Exparte)
*****
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed u/s.164 of M.V. Act 1989 for claiming compensation on account of death of Sri.Siddaraju .T.R S/o Late K. Ramaiah.
2. The brief facts of the case is that, on 28.10.2022 at about 8:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Thyamagondlu Police Station, near Kalalugatta Kerekodi bridge, T. Beguru - Thyamagondlu road, when the accused / Girish was riding the offending Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-52-U-8194 along with the deceased Siddaraju T.R., as pillion rider proceeding from T.Beguru towards Thyamagondlu in a high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at that time a dog crossed the road and in the intention to avoid dashing to the said dog, the rider suddenly moved the vehicle towards left side, as a result the rider lost control over the offending vehicle and fall on the road along with pillion rider, due to which the rider has SCCH - 7 3 MVC No.2572/2023 sustained simple injuries and pillion rider/Siddaraju.T.R., has sustained grievous injuries on his hands, leg, head and other parts of his body and thereafter he was shifted to Govt., Hospital, Nelamangala for first aid, then shifted to Kanva hospital for higher treatment and thereafter for higher treatment shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, Bangalore and on 18.11.2022 at 6-15 a.m., he died due to efficacious of treatment. Thereafter, the informant/Ramalakshmamma lodged complaint before the Thyamagondlu police station. Accordingly, a case was registered in their Crime No.113/2022 and prepared F.I.R. for the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304A of IPC and submitted to the jurisdictional judicial magistrate and the superior officers and investigation was taken up by the investigating Officer.
3. It is contended that, Petitioner is the mother of the deceased Sri.Siddaraju and as on the date of the alleged accident the said deceased was aged about 24 years and he was working in SCCI Factory and earning income of Rs.3,300/- p.m. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under different head of loss of dependency, funeral and obsequies expenses, loss of filial love, loss of consortium, loss of estate.
SCCH - 7 4 MVC No.2572/2023
4. It is contended that, accident is solely due to the rash or negligent riding of the accused/rider of the offending Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-U- 8194 and the respondent No.2 is the RC owner and Respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through it's counsel and filed the written statement. The Respondent No.2 is placed exparte.
6. In the written statement of respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 the Insurance Company has admitting that, the offending Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-52-U-8194 was duly insured with it and the same is valid on the date of the accident and denied the petition averments in part. Further it is contended that the insured vehicle is not involved in the accident. The insurer liability is subjected to validity of the DL, permit and other documents as per the law. Further it is alleged that there is no compliance of provision under Section 134(C), 158(6) of M.V. Act. Further it is contended that the alleged accident is occurred due to sole negligence and fault of the deceased and further contended that at the time of accident the deceased was riding the offending vehicle and due to skid he fall from SCCH - 7 5 MVC No.2572/2023 the Motor Cycle and caused the accident, which is a self accident. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and in order to get compensation the Petitioner has constrained to filed the present claim petition. Further it is denied that the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the petition is false and frivolous in the eye of law and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and reserves the right u/s.170 of M.V. Act., and violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues were framed.
:: I S S U E S ::
(1) Whether petitioner proves that deceased Siddaraju T.R. S/o Late K. Ramaiah sustained injuries due to rash and negligent act of riding of Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-
52-U-8194 dated: 28.10.2022 at about 8-30 p.m., and succumbed to injuries?
(2) Whether the Petitioner prove the age and earnings of the deceased as stated in the claim petition?
(3) Whether the Petitioner proves that she is the legal heir of the deceased Siddaraju T.R., S/o Late K. Ramaiah?
SCCH - 7 6 MVC No.2572/2023
(4) Whether petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum? from whom?
(5) What order or award?
8. In order to prove the case of petitioner, petitioner got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P- 1 to P.14 and closed her side. The Senior Manager of the Insurance Company got examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R.1 document and closed their side.
9. Heard the arguments of both side.
10. My findings to the above referred Issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the affirmative
Issue No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 :- In the affirmative
Issue No.4 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.5q :- As per final order,
for the following.......
:REASONS:
11. Issue No.1:- This petition is filed u/s.164 of
M.V.Act 1989 for seeking compensation due to death of Sri. Siddaraju T.R. S/o late K.Ramaiah, in the alleged accident.
SCCH - 7 7 MVC No.2572/2023
12. The petitioner in the petition has contended that, on 28.10.2022 at about 8:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Thyamagondlu Police Station, near Kalalugatta Kerekodi bridge, T. Beguru - Thyamagondlu road, when the accused / Girish was riding the offending Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-52-U-8194 along with the deceased Siddaraju T.R., as pillion rider from T.Beguru towards Thyamagondlu in a high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at that time a dog crossed the road and in the intention to avoid dashing to the said dog the rider suddenly moved towards left side, as a result the rider lost control over the offending vehicle and fall on the road along with pillion rider, due to which, the rider has sustained simple injuries and pillion rider/Siddaraju.T.R., has sustained grievous injuries on his hands, leg, head and other parts of his body and thereafter he was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital for treatment and on 18.11.2022 at 6-15 a.m., he died due to efficacious of treatment. It is contended that the accident was occurred solely due to involvement of the offending vehicle. The Respondent contended that, the offending Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-52-U- 8194 was duly insured with it and the same is valid on the date of the accident and denied the petition SCCH - 7 8 MVC No.2572/2023 averments in part. Further it is contended that the insured vehicle is not involved in the accident. The insurer liability is subjected to validity of the DL, permit and other documents as per the law. Further it is alleged that there is no compliance of provision under Section 134(C), 158(6) of M.V. Act. Further it is contended that the alleged accident is occurred due to sole negligence and fault of the petitioner and further contained that at the time of accident the deceased was riding the offending vehicle and due to skid he fall from the Motor Cycle and caused the accident which is a self accident. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and in order to get compensation the Petitioner has constrained to filed the present claim petition. Further it is denied that the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the petition is false and frivolous in the eye of law and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant and reserves the right u/s.170 of M.V. Act., and violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
13. The burden to prove the framed issues lies on the Petitioner. Hence, in order to prove her case, the Petitioner herself got examined as P.W.1 and she SCCH - 7 9 MVC No.2572/2023 has reiterated the entire petition averments and contentions taken in the course of claim petition in his evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Exs.P.1 to P.14 documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. I have gone through the documents produced by the PW-1. Ex.P-1 is the copy of FIR, Ex.P-2 is the copy of complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the Spot sketch, Ex.P.5 is the Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P-6 is the Inquest report, Ex.P7 is the P.M report, Ex.P8 is the Charge sheet, Ex.P9 is the Death summary, Ex.P10 & 11 are the Aadhaar cards, Ex.P12 is the Copy of Ration card, Ex.P13 is the B.Register extract and Ex.P14 is the Copy of D.L. extract.
14. In the cross-examination of PW-1 by Respondent No.1 she has deposed that, deceased Siddaraju is her 2nd son. Her 1st son is respondent no.2 and he is unmarried and residing with her. She is pursued 2nd PUC and she has worked as Teacher and right now she has quit that job. Further she has denied that, she is still working as Teacher. Further she has denied that, at the time of accident the deceased was riding the offending vehicle without wearing helmet. At the time of alleged accident the rider Girish was riding the offending vehicle along SCCH - 7 10 MVC No.2572/2023 with deceased as pillion rider and at that time they were wearing helmet. After the alleged accident the deceased was shifted to Govt., hospital Nelamangala and thereafter the deceased was shifted to Kanva Sri Sai hospital and he was undergone surgery for head injury. As the deceased was possessing ESI card, he was shifted the deceased to Premium Sanjeevini hospital from Kanva Sri Sai hospital for higher treatment. They they have not got any Compensation from ESIC. Further she has deposed that, the deceased was working in SCCI Factory and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. and in this regard she has not produced any documents. The deceased was died unmarried. Further she has denied that, she is not dependent on the income of the deceased. Further she has denied that the alleged accident occurred due to negligent riding of the offending vehicle by the deceased. Further she has denied that, alleged accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. Further she has denied that in order to get more compensation she has produced concocted created documents and filed false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely and she is deposing falsely. During the cross, examination Pw.1 has consistently deposed on the lines of the petition/prosecution case and she has made those versions, which could not be shattered in cross examination.
SCCH - 7 11 MVC No.2572/2023
15. In order to prove the version of Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 / Insurance company has examined it's Senior Manager as RW-1 and he has reiterated the entire written statement averments and contentions taken in the course of written statement in his evidence before this Court. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. In the cross-examination of RW-1 by the counsel for Petitioner he has deposed that, he is deposing on the basis of the police documents and investigation done by the insurance company. As per their investigation the deceased Siddaraju is the R.C. owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance policy of said vehicle is Bundled insurance policy which is valid for 5 years and the said policy is in force as on the date of the alleged accident. The alleged policy is valid subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The said policy covers the personal accident coverage. Further he has denied that, as per the coverage of the policy, the policy benefit is given to user of vehicle and pillion rider. Further he has denied that, if the RC owner proceeding in the vehicle as pillion rider then the insurance policy covers to the pillion rider. Further he has denied that, as per IMT Act, the insurance policy covers both to the rider and pillion rider. Further he has deposed that, as per the said IMT Act, the PA coverage covers to the rider in terms SCCH - 7 12 MVC No.2572/2023 of conditions of the policy. In the said policy it is written as Owner/driver. Further he has denied that in order to escape from the liability, he has filed false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely.
16. On careful reading of Ex.P5/IMV report it specifies that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has been clearly opined that, the cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defects in respect of the said offending vehicle. Further the said Inspector noticed the damages to the offending vehicle that, 1. front mudguard damaged, 2. Head light mask damaged,
3. front right side indicator damaged, 4. front break lever damaged and 5. Crash guard right side damaged.
17. On going through the Ex.P-7/Postmortem report wherein the doctor has opined that cause of death of deceased Siddaraju T.R. is due to Cardio respiratory arrest, due to haemogenic shock as a result of injury to vital organ left brain.
18. On going through the Ex.P-2/complaint it is seen that on 28.10.2022 at about 8:30 p.m., near Kalalugatta Kerekodi bridge, T. Beguru - Thyamagondlu road, when the accused / Girish was SCCH - 7 13 MVC No.2572/2023 riding the offending Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-52-U-8194 along with the deceased Siddaraju T.R., as pillion rider from T.Beguru towards Thyamagondlu in a high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at that time a dog crossed the road and in the intention to avoid dashing to the said dog the rider suddenly moved towards left side, as a result the rider lost control over the offending vehicle and fall on the road along with pillion rider, due to which the rider has sustained simple injuries and pillion rider/Siddaraju.T.R., has sustained grievous injuries on his hands, leg, head and other parts of his body and thereafter he was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital for treatment and on 18.11.2022 at 6-15 a.m., he died due to efficacious of treatment. The accident was occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle.
19. On going through the Ex.P3/spot Mahazar, it is seen that in pursuance of the Ex.P2/statement, on 19.11.2022 the police have came to the spot and eye witness showed the spot to the police and the police have conducted the detailed spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and prepared Ex.P4/Spot Sketch.
SCCH - 7 14 MVC No.2572/2023
20. Admittedly, the accused/Girish is the rider of the offending vehicle and deceased sustained grievous injuries due to alleged accident. The counsel for Respondent no.1 claimed that, the alleged accident occurred due to negligence and fault of the deceased and as on the date of accident the deceased was riding the offending vehicle and the accident is due to skid and fall and the said accused was not riding the offending vehicle. Hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation.
21. On going through the prosecution papers, FIR, Spot Mahazar, Spot sketch, IMV Report, Inquest report, P.M report, Charge Sheet and the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 is specific to the effect that, rider of the offending vehicle/accused is the reason for the said incident and at his instance, the incident took place. The alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and fault of the accused. Therefore, considering the above discussed aspects collectively it is the considered opinion of the Court that, the incident having been taken place in the manner asserted by the prosecution and the same being proved to have been taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution, the accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger SCCH - 7 15 MVC No.2572/2023 human life and due to avoid dashing to the dog which was crossing the road, he has lost control over the vehicle and suddenly moved the offending vehicle to left side and caused the accident, as a result accused/rider of the offending vehicle sustained simple injuries and the deceased sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident and died in the hospital during the course of treatment. The evidence of Pw.1, RW-1, Ex.P-1/FIR, Ex.P-2/Complaint, Ex.P3/Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4/Spot sketch, Ex.P5/IMV Report, Ex.P-6/Inquest report, Ex.P7/P.M report and Ex.P- 8/Charge Sheet clearly establishes that the alleged accident occurred at the spot. It is not in dispute as to the aspect that, the deceased sustained grievous injuries in the alleged incident and died in the hospital during the course of treatment. Because, for the above reasons collectively it is clear that, the accident happened due to rash or negligent act of the accused. Matters being so, the acts of the accused person clearly constitute the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Thus because of such negligent act of the accused/rider of the offending vehicle, it resulted death of the deceased, as the accused drove the said offending vehicle very rashly and negligently on the spot. Therefore, the alleged accident occurred due to the fault of the accused/rider of the offending SCCH - 7 16 MVC No.2572/2023 vehicle. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
22. Issue No.2:- The Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and he was employee of SCCI Factory and earning Rs.3,300/- p.m. Further the counsel contended that as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the Petitioner being legal heir and mother of the deceased, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection consortium and prays to award the compensation as prayed in the petition.
23. On the other hand the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 insurance company contended that even though the Petitioner claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,300/- p.m., the same is not established by the claimant by producing the document. Since the Petitioner has not established the income of the deceased, she is not entitled for compensation towards future prospects and hence prays dismissal of the petition.
SCCH - 7 17 MVC No.2572/2023
24. On going through the Ex.P-10 Adhar card of deceased and Ex.P-11/ Aadhaar Card of the Petitioner it is seen that the Petitioner is the mother of the deceased. Hence on the strength of Ex.P-11 it is crystal clear that, the Petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased.
25. The petitioner contended that as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 24 years and she relied on the Ex.P.10/Aadhaar Card of the deceased, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 19.06.1998 and this accident was took place on 28.10.2022. Hence it is clear that as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 24 years 4 month. Hence the age of the deceased is considered as 24 years.
26. It is not in dispute that the deceased was dead due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident occurred in the alleged accident arising from the offending Motor Cycle. The counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of the claim petition filed under the provision of the MV Act question of negligence cannot be looked into and counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that no risk is contemplated under the insurance policy in respect of self negligent accident. From the above SCCH - 7 18 MVC No.2572/2023 discussion and going through the provision of the MV Act, it is clear that the grant of compensation under the provision of MV Act with respect to claim petition on the basis of structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof or negligence of the driver / owner of the vehicle (s) involved in the accident. In fact as per the claim petition filed under the provision of the MV Act, to permit the insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under 163-A (before amendment) / 164 (after amendment) with effect from 01.04.2022 of the MV Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self contradictory, but also defeat the very legislative intention. Hence in view of the claim petition filed under the provision of MV Act the insurer cannot raise any defence or negligence on part of victim to counter a claim for compensation. Section 164 of MV Act establishes a 'No fault' liability framework for compensation in case of death or grievous hurt resulting from motor vehicle accidents, requiring the owner of the insurer to pay a fixed sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for death and Rs.2,50,000/- for grievous hurt irrespective of fault.
SCCH - 7 19 MVC No.2572/2023
27. Chapter 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (prior to 2019 Amendment w.e.f 01.04.2022), the marginal heading of which is "LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT IN CERTAIN CASES" containing Section 140 to 144 is omitted by Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2022.
28. Chapter 11 (containing Sections 145 to 163, 163-A, 163-B and 164) is substituted by the Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022. Now as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), Section 164 is introduced, language of which shows that it is a combination of Section 140 and 163-A [prior to 2019 Amendment Act (32 of 2019)]. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019) is reproduced as under:-- Section 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 authorized 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.
SCCH - 7 20 MVC No.2572/2023 (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.
(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."
29. OBJECT BEHIND THE LEGISLATION:
There cannot be any dispute that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, endeavour has to be made as to how best the intention of the legislation can be achieved so as to safe-guard the interest of the victims of the accident, rather than defeating the same. The statute has to be construed according to the intent of the makers and it is the duty of the Courts to interpret the statute in such a manner that the true intention of legislature is achieved. Taking a purposive interpretation of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (pre-amendment i.e 2019 amendment w.e.f 01.04.2022), the clear intention of the legislation was to come to the rescue of all those SCCH - 7 21 MVC No.2572/2023 who in the absence of any evidence are not in a position to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, where death of the victim or permanent disablement of the victim is required to be proved by establishing the factum of negligence involving the offending vehicle resulting into causing of accident, but under Section 163-A (pre- amendment i.e 2019 amendment w.e.f 01.04.2022) the requirement of proving the negligence was dispensed with.
30. A bare reading of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (amended by the Act 32 of 2019), shows that 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 the vehicles concerned or of any other person.
31. The object and purpose of incorporating Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (pre- amendment i.e. 2019) was to provide a speedy remedy to the victims or their dependents. And the compensation to be granted in case of death or permanent disability due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (pre-amendment i.e. 2019) SCCH - 7 22 MVC No.2572/2023 is indicated in IInd Schedule of the Act whereby straight- jacket/structured formula has been applied as per the income, age of the victim only. Further the claimant under this Section shall not be required to be pleaded or establish that the death or permanent disability was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (pre-amendment i.e. 2019) lays down the liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no- fault. And the amount of compensation in case of death of any person shall be fixed to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and in respect of permanent disability of any person shall be fixed to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. This section also provides that the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of owner or owners of vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
32. As mentioned above in pre-amendment Motor Vehicles Act, there were two provisions regarding the grant of compensation to the victims/claimants i.e. Sections 140 and 163-A and now after the 2019 amendment the amount of compensation is also increased and by combining both the Sections i.e. SCCH - 7 23 MVC No.2572/2023 Section 140 and 163-A, there is only one Section i.e. Section 164. The Court should try to appreciate and see the intention of the legislation before deciding the cases. The litigants place immense trust in the judicial system, viewing judges as symbols of justice. Thus, judges have a duty to maintain this trust by delivering fair and substantive justice to the parties by actually and factually appreciating the evidence/conduct and over all facts and circumstances, difficulties faced by the near and dear ones, the gravity of loss, the gravity of agony and pain.
33. Now coming to matter on hand in view of the provision under Section 164 of the M.V Act (amended by the act 32 of 2019, 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 the vehicles concerned or of any other person. In this matter the deceased was died due to injuries sustained in the alleged accident due to involvement of the motor vehicle, hence in view of the above provision under Section 164 of MV Act the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
SCCH - 7 24 MVC No.2572/2023 34. The counsel for Respondent No.1 Insurance
Company contended that in view of the Ex.R.1/ insurance policy of the Motor Cycle involved in the alleged accident the insurance policy is valid and in force as on the date of the accident and the insurance policy is not covered to the pillion rider and the same is covered to the rider/owner of the said Motor Cycle, as such there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and accordingly the Respondent No.1 Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and it is Respondent No.2/ RC owner of the said Motor Cycle is liable to pay the compensation. In this matter the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 164 of MV Act. The claimant under this Section shall not be required to be pleaded or establish that the death or permanent disability was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. In the instant case the counsel for Petitioner has relied the decision reported in 2020 ACJ 627 in the case of Ramkhiladi and another V/s United India Co. Ltd., and another, and the Counsel contended that, deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and he was not a third party and therefore insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. In this matter the rider of the offending Motor Cycle vehicle possessing valid and SCCH - 7 25 MVC No.2572/2023 effective driving licence and the insurance policy of the alleged Motor Cycle vehicle is got marked and as on the date of the alleged accident the insurance policy is in force and in view of the position of law in the above decision and concept of deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and he was not a third party, the claimant is entitled for compensation from the insurance company, therefore the contention of the Insurance Company in relating to coverage of insurance policy to pillion rider is over looked and hence this court has no hesitation to hold that the Insurance Company was not liable. Hence, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1/Insurance Company and it is directed to deposit the compensation amount. Thus I conclude that, the Insurance company/Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition. Hence, I answered issue No.2 and 4 are partly in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the affirmative.
35. Issue No.5: for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
SCCH - 7 26 MVC No.2572/2023
ORDER
The claim petition filed by the Petitioner u/Sec.164 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby Partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The Insurance company/Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit, entire compensation amount with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner through E-payment with proper verification and identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 17th day of April 2025) (SHYAM PRAKASH) IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt. Ramalakshmamma SCCH - 7 27 MVC No.2572/2023
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1 : Sri.G.Suresh Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P-2 : True copy of complaint
Ex.P-3 : True copy of the spot panchanama
Ex.P-4 : True copy of the spot sketch
Ex.P-5 : True copy of the Motor Vehicle Accident
Report
Ex.P-6 : Inquest report
Ex.P-7 : Postmortem report
Ex.P-8 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P-9 : Death summary
Ex.P-10
& P-11 : Copies of Aadhaar card
Ex.P-12 : Copy of Ration card
Ex.P-13 : B.Register extract copy
Ex.P-14 : Copy of D.L.
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R1 Copy of insurance policy.
(SHYAM PRAKASH)
IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.