Karnataka High Court
Kalandar vs Mallikarjun And Anr on 22 August, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6202
MFA No. 201868 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201868 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KALANDAR
S/O MOHAMMED KELUR,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: PVT.SERVICE,
R/O. HONAWAD,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLIKARJUN S/O SANGAPPA RAJAMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally signed R/O. NEAR CHARANTIMATH,
by SUMITRA HUNDEKAR GALLI,
SHERIGAR
BAGALKOT - 586101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
POLICY NO.602604/31/09/6300007792,
VALID FROM 27.03.2010 TO 26.03.2011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6202
MFA No. 201868 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.08.2017
PASSED BY THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XIII, AND IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.4/2013 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AS
CLAIMED AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000/- BY THE APPELLANTS IN
THE CLAIM PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) Appeal is by the claimant challenging the dismissal of the claim petition filed by him under section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'M.V.Act').
2. The case put-forth by the claimant was that he was travelling in a cruiser jeep towards Lokapur from Yaragatti side, when the said jeep hit a lorry, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries.
3. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the lorry to which the cruiser jeep collided with, had been parked by the side of the road and therefore it could not be made liable. The Tribunal has taken the view that the -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6202 MFA No. 201868 of 2017 lorry was not in use and therefore it could not be made liable for the accident under Section 163A of the M.V.Act and it was only the vehicle which was in motion i.e., the cruiser jeep which could be proceed against the provisions of Section 163A of M.V.Act.
4. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted. Section 163A of the M.V.Act was designed to ensure that the victim of a motor vehicle accident secures compensation without having to undergo the ordeal of establishing negligence or undertake in the exercise of finding fault. If this is the true intention, the only requirement that the claimant will have to establish was that a motor vehicle was in use as a result of which an accident was caused and death or injuries had occurred. The expression use of the motor vehicle does not necessarily mean that the vehicle should be in motion. If a lorry is found in a public place, even if it is stationary, it will have to be held that it is a motor vehicle in use. If the argument of the Insurer is accepted that only if the motor -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6202 MFA No. 201868 of 2017 vehicle is in use can Section 163A of the M.V.Act be attracted, the very purpose of Section 163A M.V.Act would be nullified.
5. The further argument of the Insurer that the lorry was merely parked on the left side of the road and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry would also be of no consequence in a proceeding under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, since the question of negligence cannot be entertained let alone adjudicated by the tribunal. So long as, it is established that an accident occurred as a result of the use of a motor vehicle, the owner of the motor vehicle is made liable to pay under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. In cases where two vehicles are involved, since it is settled law that the victim can proceed against the tort feasor of his choice, the argument that the owner of the cruiser jeep in which the claimant was travelling ought to have been proceeded against cannot be accepted.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6202 MFA No. 201868 of 2017
6. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that Section 163A of the M.V.Act proceedings would not be maintainable since the lorry in question was stationed cannot be accepted and the same is set aside.
7. The tribunal has not proceeded to assess the compensation payable to the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the medical evidence indicates that the claimant had suffered hemiplegia, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal to determine the extent of disability and the compensation that the claimant would be entitled to under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, if he has suffered any disability. To this limited extent, the matter shall stand remitted to the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal shall assess the disability and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of the records.
9. Since the parties are represented before this Court directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18.09.2024.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6202 MFA No. 201868 of 2017 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12