(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV. - ABSENT) v. (BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNA GOWDA, ADV.)

SRI GURUSWAMY AGED 55 YEARS S/O GURUMALLAPPA R/AT NO.15 C.O.D QUARTERS CARLTON HOUSE PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O GURUSWAMY R/AT NO.15 C.O.D QUARTERS CARLTON HOUSE PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

SMT. PREETHI AGED 29 YEARS W/O SHANAMALLESH M R/AT NO.65 AYARAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 010. (BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV. - ABSENT) …APPELLANTS AND: THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.121 THE ESATE 9TH FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD M G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER. (BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNA GOWDA, ADV.) …RESPONDENT MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34559 MFA No. 3847 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.07.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1749/2017 PRAYING TO SET A SIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.07.2020 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-15. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed in I.A.No.2 in MVC.No.1749/2017 dated 29.07.2020 by the XIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member of MACT, Bengaluru, the claimants are before this Court. The claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. It is the case of the claimants that the accident had taken place on 15.08.2016 at about 3.15 pm., the deceased was the owner cum rider of the motorcycle as on the date of the accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself and the jurisdictional police have filed the charge sheet against the deceased in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34559 MFA No. 3847 of 2020 HC-KAR Crime No.282/2016 for which the instant claim petition is not maintainable under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that as he was the owner of the vehicle, even under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he is not entitled for compensation. As he is entitled for the personal accident coverage, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is already paid by the insurance company and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

On 04.01.2024, 05.06.2025, 03.07.2025 there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. On 22.08.2025 also as there was no representation this Court had directed the matter to be listed under the caption “dismissal” and also the order reveals that no further adjournment shall be granted for the matters which are listed under the caption “dismissal”. Today, when the matter came up, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. It appears that the appellants are not interested to pursue the matter.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34559 MFA No. 3847 of 2020 HC-KAR considered and held that the claim under Section 163-A is not maintainable, as he is the owner of the vehicle and under the personal accident coverage an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is already paid to the LRs of the deceased.

Having heard learned counsel respondent/Insurance Company, perused the material on record. The present application is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased is the owner cum driver of the vehicle. Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even for the no fault liability, the owner of the vehicle is not entitled to file an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even as per the insurance policy, the third party claims are covered and at best, the owner of the vehicle is entitled for the personal accident coverage and as submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is already paid. In those circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly held that the claim petition is not maintainable. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34559 MFA No. 3847 of 2020 HC-KAR

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants dismissed. i) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any ii) No costs. iii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2