The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9652 OF 2013 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9653 OF 2013 (MV-D) C/W IN MFA No. 9652/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI H.GIRISH S/O LATE HUCHCHHANUMANAIAH AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR IN KAMMAVARI SANGHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Legal Reasoning
Insurance Company submits that there is no dispute about the fact that as per the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the light of the amendment, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each under section 163-A MV act for the death of their parents in the accident. 7. Having heard the counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The first issue with regard to the liability the finding of the tribunal cannot be sustained. It is not a case of an application under section 166 of MV Act but it is under section 163-A of MV Act where the involvement of the vehicle and the accident are only important but not the negligence. Once the vehicle is involved, Insurance Company is bound to pay the compensation. In that view of the above matter this court holds that the respondent No.2/insurance company is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 liable to pay the compensation. Then coming to the quantum of the compensation in the light of the amendment to section 163- A of MV Act and in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Halder referred supra the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each. i. Accordingly, both the appeal of the claimants are Allowed. ii. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each. iii. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iv. The *compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. * Corrected vide chamber order dated: 12.06.2025. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 v. 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 delay. vi. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7
Arguments
2. SRI H.YATISH S/O LATE HUCHAHANUMANAIAH AGE: 27 YEARS OCC: SENIOR TECHNICIAN IN PUBLIC T.V. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 28/1 PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT 2ND CROSS, NAGARABHAVI ROAD BANGALORE-560 072 (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJU S/O HARI RAJU NO.66, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE-560 003 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 69, 2ND FLOOR, J P & DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE NEAR ICICI FIRST SOURCE MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE-560 052 (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/D 06/3/2018- SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3518/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IN MFA NO. 9653/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI H.GIRISH S/O LATE HUCHCHAHANUMANAIAH, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:ASST PROFESSOR IN KAMMAVARI SANGHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 2. SRI H.YATISH S/O LATE HUCHCHAHANUMANAIAH, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:SENIOR TECHNICIAN IN PUBLIC T V., 3. SMT. HONAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGE:75 YEARS, OCC:NIL, ALL ARE R/AT NO.28/1, PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS,NAGARABHAVI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072 (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 AND: 1. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJU S/O HARI RAJU, NO.66,1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 003 2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.69, 2ND FLOOR, J.P & DEVI, JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, NEAR ICICI FIRST SOURCE, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052 (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/D 06/03/2018- SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S) ...RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3519/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of MVC.No.3518/2012 and MVC.No.3519/2012 dated 11.07.2013 by XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and XIX ACMM, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore, the claimants are before this Court by filing MFA No.9652/2013 and MFA No.9653/2013. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 2. The case of the claimants is that on 01.04.2012 at about 6:15 p.m., deceased and her husband being parents of the claimants were travelling in a vehicle. When the said vehicle being Scorpio car reached near NH-4 Dodderi village, Nelamangala, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Maruti Alto car and fell into the pit. Due to the impact of the accident, the parents of the claimants sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to Government Hospital, Nelamangala and succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. 3. The tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petition is filed under section 163-A of the MV Act and in a petition under section 163-A of MV Act, the claimants are neither to plead nor to establish the negligence. Negligence can be established by the owner or the insurance company to defeat the claim under section 163-A of MV Act, 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and also the 1st respondent specifically contended that accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the Scorpio driver himself. Complaint came to be lodged by the 1st respondent against the said Scorpio - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 driver before Nelamangala Rural Police Station. Under such circumstances, the contention that the claim petition filed by the petitioner against owner and the insurer of the Maruti Alto car is not at all maintainable and accordingly dismissed the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that when the application is filed under section 163-A of MV Act, the accident and the involvement of the vehicle only needs to be proved but not the negligence. Though the negligence on the part of the Scorpio vehicle as two vehicles are involved, they can claim the compensation against the owner and the insurer of the Alto Car and the said findings of the tribunal is contrary to the settled law. 5. When it comes to the compensation, he had relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Urmila Halder1 considering the amendment to section 163-A of MV Act, the compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- can be granted retrospectively i.e., even if the accident had taken place even before the 1 2025 ACJ 244 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14547 MFA No. 9652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9653 of 2013 amendment in the year 2018. Basing on this learned counsel submits that in both the cases the compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- can be awarded by the court without remanding the matter to the tribunal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/