Karnataka High Court
Kum Prashulla vs Smt Micheal Rita on 18 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26803
MFA No. 5706 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5706 OF 2014(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. KUM PRASHULLA
D/O LATE SUGUMARAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
2. SRI MALVIN
S/O LATE SUGUMARAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
3. SRI GUNASTIN
S/O LATE SUGUMARAN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.C-123
NORTH RING ROAD, ITI COLONY
Digitally signed DOORVANI NAGAR,
by BENGALURU-560016.
ANNAPURNA G
...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT. MICHEAL RITA
AGED MAJOR
NO.C-123, NORTH RING ROAD
ITI COLONY, DOORVANI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560016.
2. THE MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.31,
TBR TOWERS, 1ST CROSS,
NEW MISSION ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26803
MFA No. 5706 of 2014
HC-KAR
BENGALURU-560 016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4740/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE, & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGLURU,
THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2014 passed by the II Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-13), Bengaluru (for short ' the Tribunal), in MVC.No.4740/2009
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case of both the parties are that on 19.05.2009 at around 11.00 a.m, the deceased Sugumaran was riding two wheeler bearing -3- NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR registration No.KA-O3/HB-2358 at Ramaiah Layout, Bengaluru. While crossing a road hump he lost control of the vehicle and fell down. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries.
4. The claimants are children of the deceased Sugumaran. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 50 years. He was working as an operator in Mysore Sandal Soap and earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. The claimants were dependant upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
5. The claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act.
6. The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said vehicle. He was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 is the insurer. He filed written statement denying the contentions of the claimants and further contended that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR Therefore, claimants are not entitled to compensation and petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable.
7. It was also contended that respondent No.1 is none other then the mother of claimant and she was the wife of the deceased. She is also a legal heir of the deceased. Therefore, claim petition is not maintainable. Claimant and recipient cannot be one and the same person. It also contended that first respondent paid premium of insurance through cheque along with proposal for policy and said cheque was dishonored on the ground of 'insufficient funds'. Respondent No.2 cancelled the said policy of insurance and intimated the same to respondent No.1 through registered post, which was duly served on respondent No.1. Therefore, she had not paid any premium. Hence, as on the date of the accident, offending vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2. It also contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR effective driving license and hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
8. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
9. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW-1 and got marked 10 documents as per Exs.P1 to P10. Respondent No.1 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as per Exs.R1 to R6.
10. Witness examined on behalf of respondent No.2 and documents marked on behalf of respondent No.2 were not noted in the annexure of the impugned judgment.
11. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was not maintainable.
12. I have heard the arguments.
13. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that when a claim petition is filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'), it is -6- NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR not necessary to plead and prove the negligence of rider or driver of the vehicle. It is sufficient to prove involvement of the vehicle in the accident. In this case, deceased was going on a two wheeler belonging to respondent No.1 and he met with accident and died, which is not in dispute. Therefore, respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. In the alternative, he submitted that even if he is not entitled to compensation under Section 163A of Act but claimants are entitled to fixed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- since respondent No.1 paid extra premium to cover the risk of the owner- cum-rider of the offending vehicle. He further contended that Tribunal without valid reasons dismissed the claim petition. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and prayed to award compensation.
14. Learned counsel for the insurer reiterated the grounds taken in the written statement and further contended that respondent No.1 in this case is none other than the wife of the deceased and mother of the claimants. She is also one of the legal heirs of deceased. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR
15. Deceased was borrower of the vehicle and he steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, he was not a third party. Claimants and recipient cannot be one and the same person. Hence, claim petition is not maintainable, even under Section 163A of the Act. He also submitted that in view of the cancellation of policy of insurance by respondent No.2 for non-payment of premium, claimants are even not entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as contended. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
16. The learned counsel for appellant has relied on following decisions;
• Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited1 • Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another2 • United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. N.Praveena and others3 • Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Madhu H.K. and another4 • Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. R. Damodharan and another5 1 (2009) KACJ 398 (SCC) 2 (2020) 2 SCC 550 3 2023 ACJ 1708 4 2024 ACJ 1319 5 2021 ACJ 2706 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR
17. On perusal of the judgments rendered by the appellants, they are contrary to the contentions of the claimants and are in favour of respondent No.2. In the case of Ningamma and another (referred supra); in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person cannot be both claimant and also a recipient with respect to a claim. In that case, the deceased was borrower of motorcycle from its real owner and while riding it met with an accident due to his negligence. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable and it was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
18. The recent judgment on this point is in the case of RamKhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another6; in that case also, borrower of a vehicle met with an accident and died due to his own fault. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, in that event he was not a third party, he stepped into the shoes of owner of the 6 (2020) 2 SCC 550.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR vehicle and his legal heirs cannot file a petition even under Section 163A of the Act and it is not maintainable.
19. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. N. Praveena and others (referred supra); in this case also legal heirs of the deceased owner of the motorcycle filed a claim petition against the insurer of the said motorcycle. The Tribunal awarded the compensation and that was challenged before the High Court, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying on the judgments of the Apex Court held that such claim petitions under Section 163A of the Act is also not maintainable and dismissed the appeal.
20. In all the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that, when legal heirs of borrower of vehicle filed claim petition against the owner and insurer of the very same vehicle, it is not maintainable even under Section 163A of the Act. In the present case also, the rider of the motorcycle was none other than husband of respondent
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR No. 1 (owner of the offending vehicle) and father of the claimants. He borrowed the vehicle and while riding the same he met with an accident and died. Even the respondent No. 1 is also a legal heir of the deceased. Hence the claim petition is not maintainable, even under Section 163A of the Act.
21. In the alternately, the learned counsel for appellant prayed to award compensation on the ground that the owner of the vehicle paid additional premium to cover the risk of owner cum driver. As per terms of policy in the event of death of owner cum driver, insurer is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- may be paid to the claimants. The said contention is also not maintainable in the present case. It is pertinent to note that respondent No. 1 had paid the premium through cheque (Ex.R2). The said cheque was presented for encashment and it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of the funds in the account of respondent No. 1. The said memo is placed on record as per Ex.R3. Respondent No. 2 issued notice about dishonour of cheque and consequently cancellation
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR of the policy. The copy of the said notice is at Ex.R4. The said notice was duly served on respondent No. 1 on 16.02.2009 as per the acknowledgment at Ex.R5. The accident occurred on 20.05.2009. About three months prior to the accident, the said cover note issued to respondent No. 1 stood cancelled. Respondent No.1 was aware that she gave the said cheque without sufficient balance in her bank account. Secondly, she was intimated about cancellation of cover note by letter sent through registered post and it was duly served on her. As the policy of insurance stood cancelled long prior to the accident. Hence, the question of liability of insurance company to pay even Rs.1,00,000/- as per terms of policy does not arise. On both these grounds, claimants are not entitled to compensation.
22. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was not maintainable, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said findings.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26803 MFA No. 5706 of 2014 HC-KAR
23. For aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award 05.04.2014 passed by the II Additional Small causes Judge and XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in MVC.No.4740/2009 is confirmed.
Send back trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1