Bangalore District Court
Ramesh Kalluraya vs P. Dinesh Kumar on 13 June, 2025
KABC020217822024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
MVC No.3303/2024
PETITIONER: 1. Sri. Ramesh Kalluraya
S/o Late Narayana
Kalluraya,
Aged about 62 years,
2. Smt. Sudha Kalluraya
W/o Ramesh Kalluraya,
Aged about 60 years,
Both are R/at
No.259, Kumbhashi Village
and Post,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi Dist.
(By Sri.Kalleshappa M.V.
Advocate/s.)
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3303/2024
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri. P. Dinesh Kumar
S/o Narayanaparushurama,
Major,
R/o No.1-259,
Parishrama,
Kumbhashi Village and Post,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi Dist.
(Ex-Parte)
2. The United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.18, Krishi Bhavan,
5th Floor,
Opp. Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore -560 001.
(By Sri. B.T.Rudra Murthy,
Advocate.)
******
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying for awarding compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Jayaram P Kalluraya S/o Ramesh Kalluraya SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3303/2024 was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 30.07.2022 at about 6.15PM.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
on 30.07.2022 the deceased Jayaram P. Kalluraya was going towards Chouk from KPT side on NH-66 Road, at Mangalore city by riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20- EK-5370. On the way at about 6.15pm in front of KSRTC II depot, Kuntikana, Mangalore city and dashed the motorcycle to a pick up goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AB-0841 and fell down, sustained grievous head injuries. Thereafter the rider was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangalore and took treatment as an inpatient till 26.08.2022. In the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 26.08.2022.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased Jayaram P Kalluraya was aged about 25 years. The deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EK- 5370 which belongs to his paternal uncle i.e., the 1 st Respondent. The 1st respondent had taken comprehensive policy and there is coverage of compulsory personal accident claim. The deceased had a DL to drive a motorcycle vide DL No.KA-20180005398 issued on 16.04.2018 by RTO Udupi.
4. The 1st respondent being the RC owner of the motorcycle and the 2nd respondent being its insurer and SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3303/2024 liable to pay PA coverage amount to the petitioners.
5. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appeared before the Court. Hence, the respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte. In response to the notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement.
6. The respondent No.2 has filed objections by admitting the issuance of policy in favour of the Respondent No.1 (paternal uncle of the deceased) in respect of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EK-5370. Further contended that as per the police records the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EK-5370 himself was negligent to cause the accident and sustained grievous injuries due to self-negligent act not due to anybody's negligence. It had denied the relationship of the deceased and the respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle. Further denied the age, and he was a student and earnings of the deceased. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are arises for determination.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal heirs of the deceased Jayaram P. Kalluraya S/o Ramesh Kalluraya?
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3303/20242. Whether the petitioners prove that Jayaram P Kalluraya sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AE-0841 on dated 30.07.2022 at about 6.15pm and he died in the hospital during the course of treatment.
3. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so,what is the quantum? From whom?
4. What order or award?
8. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.2 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked total Nineteen documents as Exs.P1 to P.19 and closed their side evidence. Inorder to prove its defence the respondent No.2 got examined its Administrative Officer as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & 2 and closed their side.
9. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the counsels for the petitioner and the respondent No.2.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3303/20241. 2009 ACJ 2020: Ningamma and Anr. vs. United India Ins.Co. Ltd.,
2. 2020 ACJ 627 : Ramkhiladi and Anr. Vs. United India Ins.
Co. Ltd., and Anr.
3. 2022 ACJ 1686: Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Subramaniam and Ors.
4. 2023 CJ 1837 : Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Chandramma and Ors.
5. MFA No.8300/2011 (MV): The United India ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. N. Praveena and Ors.
6. 2022 ACJ 1908: New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Surjit Mohan and Anr.
7. First Appeal No.803/2013 : Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Nagpur Divisional Office Vs. Smt. Aarti & Ors.
8. MFA 2488/2006 : The Oriental Ins. Co. Lt.d, Vs. Smt. Mahabunni and Anr.
9. MANU/KA/0906/2003 :
10. First Appeal Order 4364/2006 (O & M) : Arvind Kumar Vs. Sham Sunder Ravi Kumar and Ors.
11. Civil Appeal No.7402/2008 : New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors.
12. 2024 ACJ 1319 : Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Madhu H.K and Anr.
13. MFA No.4946/2011 (MV) : The Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Lt.d, Vs. Smt. L. Radha and Ors.
10. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in before this tribunal, my answers to the above Issues are as follows:
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3303/2024Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the negatively Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the foregoing;
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: It is not the case of the insurer that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased. Apart from that the documents produced by the petitioners i.e., Aadhaar Card, driving license of the deceased and death extract are clearly indicates that the petitioners are being the parents of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, I answered issue No.1 in the affirmatively.
12. Issue Nos.2 & 3: The police have filed the abated charge sheet against the deceased. This fact has not been denied by either side. The petition and evidence of the PW.1 has clearly depicts that the deceased was dashed the motor cycle to pick up vehicle and caused the accident. The tribunal has framed the issue in respect of negligence on driver of pick up vehicle. It is well settled principle of law that admitted facts needs not to be proved.
13. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in "2009 ACJ 2020 SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3303/2024 in the case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.", wherein it is held as under;
"18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rajni Devi, 2008 ACJ 1441 (SC), wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinhal was a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that section 163A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under Section 163A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. 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 163A of the MVA. 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 deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.
19. We have already extracted Section 163A of the MVA herein before. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear thatpersons like the deceased in the present case would step into SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3303/2024 the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under section 163A. But if it is proved that driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163A of the MVA.
20. When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under section 163A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the question remains as to whether an application for demand of compensation could have been made by the legal representatives of the deceased as provided in section 166 of the MVA. The said provision specifically provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) f section 165 may be made by the person who has sustained the injury; or by the owner of the property; or where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. When an application of the aforesaid nature claiming compensation under the provisions of section 166 is received, the Tribunal is required to SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3303/2024 hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award which, however, would be subject to the provisions of section 162, by determining the amount of compensation, which is found to be just. Person or persons who made claim for compensation would thereafter be paid such amount. When such a claim is made by legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. It would also be necessary to prove that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the insurance company liable to make the payment to the heirs. In this context reference could be made to relevant paras of section 147 of the MVA.
21. Section 147 of the MVA provides that the policy of insurance could also cover cases against any liability which may be incurred by the insurer in respect of death or fatal injury to any person including owner of the vehicle or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or arising out of the use of vehicle in the public place. ...."
14. I have perused the above referred decision and it is aptly applicable to the present case on hand. In this case there is involvement of vehicle of the deceased who stepped into the shoes of the original owner of the said bike and due to rash or negligent of act of deceased the accident was occurred as evident from the chargesheet. Therefore, when there exists a comprehensive policy covering the owner definitely the deceased is entitled for said amount. Further, on perusal of Ex.R2/True copy of policy produced by the respondent insurer, there is P.A. cover under Section III for Registered Owner- Driver. As per the above decision the SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3303/2024 borrower i.e. the deceased in the present case is stepped into the shoes of owner and covered under policy as the deceased was riding the bike by borrowing the same from the owner and he is covered under policy and consequently his LRs are entitled to the said amount. Therefore, from the evidence placed by the petitioners they have proved their case and deceased himself was was riding the bike belongs to respondent No.1, due to which he succumbed to injuries. Hence, I answer issue No.2 in the negatively and issue No.3 in the affirmatively.
15. Issue No.4: As discussed above the Ex.R.2 is package policy covering the registered owner cum driver i.e. the present deceased in this case who stepped into the shoes of the owner. Therefore, following ORDER The claim petition filed by claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
(Rupees fifteen lakhs only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.2 is liable to SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3303/2024 pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw 50% and remaining 50% shall be invested as F.D. in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
Draw the award accordingly.
Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
(Directly typed by the Stenographer in the computer and corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 13th day of June, 2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA. R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Smt. Sudha Kalluraya List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR in Cr.No.97/2022 Ex.P2 True copy of complaint dated 30.07.2022 SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3303/2024 Ex.P3 True copy of spot mahazar dated 31.07.2022 Ex.P4 True copy of spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of Inquest Ex.P6 True copy of Sec.304(A) charge alteration requisition Ex.P7 True copy of Death Intimation Ex.P8 True copy of PM report Ex.P9 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P10 True copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report Ex.P11 True copy of Notice u/Sec.133 of MV Act Ex.P12 True copy of reply to the notice u/Sec.133 of MV Act.
Ex.P13 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P14 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of my
deceased son
Ex.P15 Notarized copy of DL of my deceased Son
Ex.P16 Notarized copy of Death Certificate of my
deceased Son
Ex.P17 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner
No.1
Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of my Aadhar Card Ex.P.19 Treatment summary List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri. Prashanth N.G. SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3303/2024 List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of Policy
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.06.18
11:52:20 +0530