Karnataka High Court
Legal Manager vs Smt. Uma on 3 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13960
MFA No. 7167 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7167/2014 (MV-D)
Between:
Legal Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Branch Office, Ist Floor,
Kruthika Arcade, MPLSAS No.329,
331, Near N.R.Circle, Holenarasipura Road,
Hassan-573201,
Now Rep by its Legal Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
RGIC, No.28, East Wing, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Appellant
(By Sri Pradeep B, Advocate)
And:
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M 1. Smt. Uma
Location: HIGH W/o Channabasappa @ Chandru
COURT OF
KARNATAKA Aged about 27 years
2. Timmamma
W/o Basavaraju
Aged about 52 years
3. Basavaraju
S/o Byrappa
Aged about 55 years
4. Pruthvi
S/o Channabasappa
Aged about 6 years
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13960
MFA No. 7167 of 2014
Note: Respondent No.4 is minor
since Represented by Natural Guardian
Mother i.e., 1st Respondent
All are R/o Manakanthur Village
Banavara Hobli, Arsikere Taluk
Hassan District-583125.
5. Shahida Begam
Major
No.5, Anugraha-3
Ayyappareddy Garden,
LIC Colony, Yashwantapur
Bengaluru-560022.
6. Holeyappa
S/o Ningappa Balappanavar
now Aged about 37 years
R/o Somlapura Village
Ranebennur Taluk
Haveri District-581115
7. The Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, Hassan-573101
...Respondents
(By Sri H.T.Jagadeesh, Advocate for R2 & R3;
Sri Loknath K., Advocate for R5;
Sri S.Srishaila, Advocate for R7;
R4 is served-minor represented by his Mother R1;
R6 served; Sri Pradeep Rajanna, Advocate forR1)
This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated 09.04.2014 passed in MVC
No.489/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, MACT,
Arasikere.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13960
MFA No. 7167 of 2014
This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, judgment
was delivered therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is by the insurance company against the order dated 09.04.2014 in MVC No.489/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere, directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage.
2. Heard the counsel appearing for the insurance company and counsel appearing for the claimants perused the material on record.
3. The claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) by the wife, son and parents of one Chandru @ Channabasappa claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29.09.2011 at about 5.30 a.m., when the deceased Chandru @ Channabasappa was -4- NC: 2025:KHC:13960 MFA No. 7167 of 2014 driving canter lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04 B2490 near Old Kundalavada bridge and dashed against the tractor which was stationed by the side of the road. The claimant No.1- wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P4. The tribunal by the impugned order awarded compensation of Rs.4,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, out of the said compensation directed the appellant-insurer to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident, as such the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. The award passed by the tribunal is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ningamma V. United India Insurance Company Limited1 (Ningamma) and in the case of New India Assurance 1 2009 ACJ 2020 SC -5- NC: 2025:KHC:13960 MFA No. 7167 of 2014 Company Limited V. Sadananda Mukhi2 (Sadananda Mukhi).
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the law is well settled and no more a res-integra that the grant of compensation under section 163 A of the Act is in the nature of final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident in light of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited V. Sunil Kumar and another3 (Sunil Kumar).
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the question that falls for consideration is;
"whether impugned award passed by the tribunal warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case?"2
2009 SCJ 998 3 AIR 2017 SC 5710 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:13960 MFA No. 7167 of 2014
7. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The order assailed is holding the appellant-insurer liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
8. Ex.P2 is the policy which contains the "deductible under Section" clause(iv) PA cover for owner/driver under Section IV of CSI Rs.2,00,000/-. In light of the aforesaid clause, the insurance company being the insurer of the vehicle has to pay Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total compensation amount and the first respondent owner of the offending vehicle has to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,63,000/-.
9. Section 163A of the Act reads as under:
"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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:13960 MFA No. 7167 of 2014 motor vehicle of 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 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."
10. Subsection (2) of Section 163A of the Act clearly emphasizes that when a claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the Act the claimant is not required -8- NC: 2025:KHC:13960 MFA No. 7167 of 2014 to plead or establish the negligent or wrongful act or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned or any other person.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar has held that grant of compensation under Section 163A of the Act on basis of the structured formula is in the nature of final award and adjudication there under is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident, further observed that, permitting the insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act on a par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention. From the provision of Section 163A of the Act and in light of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar, cannot hold this Court for long to arrive at a conclusion that when a claim is made under Section 163A of the Act, compensation is to be -9- NC: 2025:KHC:13960 MFA No. 7167 of 2014 awarded on the basis of structured formula without any reference to fault liability. The award passed by the tribunal does not warrant any interference, accordingly, point framed for consideration is answered and for the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
1. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.
2. Amount in deposit to be remitted to the tribunal.
Sd/-
________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21