Bangalore District Court
Ranjith vs Mahesh.M.J on 23 December, 2024
KABC020344792022
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT : SRI J.N.SUBRAMANYA, B.A., L.L.M.,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.6429/2022
PETITIONER: Ranjith,
S/o. Venkatesh C.V.,
Aged about 32 years,
Ramhapurimata road,
B.Kanabur, Balehonnur,
Chikkamagalur,
Narasimharajapura,
Karnataka -577 112.
(Represented by Sri Shankar A.C. ,
Advocate)
-Vs-
RESPONDENTS:1. Mahesh M.J.,
S/o. Janardhan Acharya,
Vatkodige, R.P.Mutt (PO),
N.R.Pura (Tq.),
Chikkamagalur,
Karnataka .
(Owner of the vehicle
SCCH.1 2 MVC No.6429/2022
Bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179)
(Absent)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Leo Shopping Complex,
No.44/45, 4th floor,
Residency Road, Bangalore-560 025.
(Insurer of the vehicle bearing
No.KA-18-EA-1179
Policy No.47310/31/2022/5119
Period of time 14.01.2022 to
13.01.2023.
(By Sri B.S.Krishna, Advocate)
*******
JUDGMENT
Petitioner Ranjith , S/o. Venkatesh C.V., being
younger brother of deceased Manikanta, S/o. Venkatesh
C.V., filed petition under Section 164 of IMV Act claiming
compensation worth of Rs.15,00,000/- from the
respondents , who are the owner and insurer of Motorcycle
bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179 alleging that on 25.05.2022 at
7.45 p.m. when Manikanta riding Motorcycle bearing
No.KA-18-EA-1179 on Balehonnuru- N.R.Pura road , near
Abeed building, Kadlemakki village, Balehonnuru,
Chikkamagalur district, within the limits of Balehonnuru
SCCH.1 3 MVC No.6429/2022
police station , a cow suddenly entered the road, thereby
made motorcycle to dash to cow, therefore, Manikanta fell
along with motorcycle on the road, suffered injuries.
Immediately after the accident Manikanta has been
admitted to Government hospital , Balehonnuru, wherein
doctors have declared Manikanta as brought dead.
2. As on the date of accident Manikanta being aged
about 36 years, working in private.
3. Regarding accident Balehonnuru police registered
a case in crime No.60/2022 .
4. In response to the notice, respondent No.2
insurance company appeared through his Advocate and
filed written statement admitting the subsistence of the
policy with respect to the Motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-EA-
1179 as on the date of incident, asserting that the
petitioner is not entitle to receive compensation.
Respondent No.2 asserted that Manikanta himself suffered
accident.
5. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.1 owner
of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179 remained
absent.
SCCH.1 4 MVC No.6429/2022
6. On the basis of the pleadings on 14.03.2024, this
Authority has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on
25.05.2022 at about 07.45 p.m. on
Balehonnuru – N.R.Pura road, near Abeed
building, Kadlemakki , Balehonnuru,
Chikkamagaluru district, the death caused to
one Manikanta was due to the use of the
Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-18-EA-1179 as
alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order?
7. On 31.01.2024, 08.04.2024, petitioner deposed as
PW1 and produced 11 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.11. On
28.10.2024 learned Advocate for petitioner get marked
copy of policy pertaining to motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-
EA-1129 as Ex.P.12.
8. I heard the arguments submitted on behalf of both
the contesting parties and perused the records.
9. On the basis of the record, my findings on the
above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 … In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 … In this case petitioner is not entitle to
receive compensation.
SCCH.1 5 MVC No.6429/2022
Issue No.3 … As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 :- In the evidence PW1 stated that on
25.05.2022 at 7.45 p.m. when Manikanta was riding
Motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179 on Balehonnuru-
N.R.Pura road , near Abeed building, Kadlemakki village,
Balehonnuru, Chikkamagalur district, within the limits of
Balehonnuru police station, a cow suddenly entered the
road, therefore Manikanta dashed the motorcycle to the
cow , fell on the road, suffered injuries and on the way to
the hospital succumbed to the injuries.
11. In the written statement respondent No.2 has not
seriously disputed the involvement of the Motorcycle
bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179 in the accident and result of
the accident.
12. In the cross-examination, PW1 submitted that he
never witnessed the accident.
13. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the FIR pertaining to crime
No.60/2022 registered by Balehonnuru police against
SCCH.1 6 MVC No.6429/2022
Manikanta for having committed offence punishable under
Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC on the basis of complaint
presented by Ranjith, the petitioner.
14. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the
copy of crime detail form, Ex.P.4 is the motorcycle seizure
mahazar. Ex.P.5 is the copy of inquest mahazar. Ex. P.6 is
the copy of P.M.Report. Ex.P.7 is the Motor Vehicle
Accident Report. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the abated
chargesheet filed by Balehonnuru police in crime
No.60/2022 against Manikanta, rider of Motorcycle bearing
No.KA-18-EA-1179 for having committed offence
punishable under Section 279,304(A) of IPC.
15. In this case, at this stage there are no reasons to
disbelieve the contents of police records regarding reason,
mode and consequence of the accident. Hence, I have
concluded that on 25.05.2022 at 7.45 p.m. on
Balehonnuru- N.R.Pura road , in view of use of the
Motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179 by Manikanta ,
Manikanta met with an accident, suffered injuries and
succumbed to those injuries. Hence, I answer issue No.1
in the affirmative .
SCCH.1 7 MVC No.6429/2022
16. Issue No.2: In the argument learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner, by analyzing the evidence
available in file, requested to award compensation as
claimed in the petition by relying on the following
judgments:
1. 2024 ACJ 1319 ( Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Madhu H.K. and another) D.D.05.01.2024
2. MFA No.4946/2011(MV) (The Manager, Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. L. Radha & others)
D.D.28.06.2021
3. 2009 ACJ 2020 (Ningamma and another Vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. ) D.D.13.05.2009 Wherein it is
held :
Owner – Borrower of vehicle- Person
borrowed motor cycle from its owner and met
with accident resulting in his death – Deceased
cannot be held to be employee of owner although
he was authorised to drive the vehicle by its
owner – Whether borrower would step into the
shoes of the owner – Held: Yes
4. 2020 ACJ 627 (Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another) D.D.07.01.2020
wherein it is held :
Motor Insurance – Personal accident cover-
Borrower of vehicle- Death of – Liability of
insurance company – Borrower of motorcycle
while driving the vehicle met with accident and
sustained fatal injuries due to negligence and
another motor cycle – Heirs of the deceased filed
claim under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act
SCCH.1 8 MVC No.6429/2022against the owner and insurance company of
borrowed motor cycle without impleading parties
of the offending motor cycle – Claim application
dismissed- Additional premium had been paid
towards personal accident cover to owner- cum-
driver for Rs.1,00,000/- whether the insurance
company is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the
heirs of borrower of vehicle – Held yes: he
stepped into the shoes of the owner of vehicle.
5. 2022 ACJ 1686 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Subramaniam and others) wherein it is held:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 163-A- Claim
application- Maintainability of – Death of owner-
insured-Owner while driving his motorcycle fell
into a pet and sustained fatal injuries Legal
representatives filed claim application under
Section 163A and Tribunal awarded
compensation against insurance company-
Whether legal representatives of owner-insured ,
who himself was a tortfeasor, can claim
compensation against insurance company of
owner under Section 163-A-Held No, however
insurance company is liable to pay
Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident cover for
owner – driver as per policy.
In this case, the victim who is the insured
himself had voluntarily by reckless driving , fell
into 10 ft pit and dashed against the coconut
tree. He being the tortfeasor his legal
representatives cannot claim compensation
against his own insurance company under
Section 163-A of the Act. There is no contractual
agreement between the insurer and insured to
indemnify him for his own fault, except the
personal accident cover of Rs.1,00,000/- for
which additional premium has been paid. Being
a fatal accident, the claimants are entitled for a
personal accident coverage of limited liability of
SCCH.1 9 MVC No.6429/2022Rs.1,00,000/- payable under the personal
accident cover, being the owner-cum rider of the
two wheeler. Since an additional premium of
Rs.50 was collected from the vehicle owner , who
is the deceased for personal accident, therefore,
insurance company is liable to pay the agreed
liability of Rs.1,00,000/-. The claimants are
entitled to receive the same, if they have not so
far received it.
6. 2023 ACJ 1837 ( Branch Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Chandramma and others) D.D.
24.03.2023 wherein it is held as :
Contention that owner himself was the
tortfeasor and claim for death of owner insured
is not maintainable Evidence that insurance
company received additional premium towards
personal accident cover for owner/driver to the
extent of Rs.2,00,000/ whether liability of
insurance company is limited to Rs.2,00,000
under PA cover for owner /driver. Held: yes.
driver for Rs.1,00,000/- whether the insurance
company is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the
heirs of borrower of vehicle – Held yes: he
stepped into the shoes of the owner of vehicle.
7. M.F.A. NO.8300/2011 C/w. M.F.A.No.6788/2011,
M.F.A. No.6789/2011 and M.F.A.No.8301/2011( The
united India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Smt.N.Praveena and others) D.D. 10.08.2022 wherein
it is held as :
28. As discussed at para 24 and 25, the petition
under Section 163-A of M.V.Act is not
maintainable against the respondents 1 and 2 .
Therefore, peteitioners in MVC No.491/2010 are
not entitled for any compensation under Section
163-A of M.V.Act. However, in the light of
Ex.R.1, as per the terms of the contract of
SCCH.1 10 MVC No.6429/2022
insurance between respondent No.1 and 2
respondent No.2 is liable to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- covering the personal accident
claim of the owner/driver, as the deceased
stepped into the shoes of the owner in his
capacity as the borrower of the offending vehicle.
8. 2022 ACJ 1908 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surjit
Mohan and another) wherein it is held as :
Policy covers personal accident for owner driver
to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/ Held: as per
definition of ‘driver’ in the policy any person
holding a valid licence is a driver therefore,
contention that owner driver means owner-cum-
driver is not acceptable’ injured was holding a
valid licence therefore, he is entitled to
Rs.2,00,000/- as per PAC for owner-driver.
Further held that:
12. The definition of driver, as defined in the
insurance policy, is an inclusive definition, i.e.,
any person including the insured subject to the
condition of having an effective driving licence .
The word ‘owner -driver’ needs to be read in
consonance with the inclusive definition of the
term ‘ driver’ given in the policy. It is a well
settled principle that when there is an inclusive
definition, the ordinary meaning of the word is
enlarged and the ordinary meaning is not
restricted by such inclusive definition. In the
case in hand, a reading of the definition of driver
in the policy discloses that within the definition,
it brings under its fold, specifically the ‘insured’
and at the same time ordinary meaning is not
restricted by bringing under its fold ‘ any person’
subject to the qualification of both the ‘insure’ or
‘ any person’ having an effective driving licence.
SCCH.1 11 MVC No.6429/2022
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that ‘owner- driver’ means
owner-cum- driver is not accepted.
13. In view of the aforesaid finding, the
claimant is entitled for compensation under the
contractual terms of the insurance policy.
According to the terms of the policy, as stated
herein above, the liability of the applicant
insurance company is limited to Rs.2,00,000/-.
Therefore, though the claimant is not entitled to
the award of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 163-A
he is entitled to the same as per the policy
terms, for the reasons discussed herein above.
14. Accordingly, it is directed that claimant
is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as per the terms of
the insurance policy along with interest at the
rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of
claim application till disbursal.
9. First appeal No.803/2013 ( Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Co.Ltd, Nagpur Divisional office, Vs.
Smt.Aarti and others)
10. M.F.A. No.2488/2006 ( The Oriental insurance Co.Ltd.,
Vs. Smt. Mahabunni and others) wherein it is held
that :
20. The issue can be examined from yet
another angle. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles
Act prescribed the requirement of a policy of
insurance in order that the same may be said to
comply with the provisions of Chapter XI. It,
inter alia, envisages a policy of insurance which
insures the person or class of persons specified
in the policy against any liability which may be
incurred by him in respect of the death or bodily
injury or damage to any property of a third party
arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public
place. What is important is that the policy must
insure the owner against “any liability which
SCCH.1 12 MVC No.6429/2022arises against him” on account of any death or
injury arising out of a motor accident. In the
case of an accident where the person who is
killed or injured is himself responsible for the
accident without the involvement of any other
vehicle or agency, no liability, qua the insured
would arise except where the person who is
killed or injured is an employee of the insured
and the accident arises out of his employment.
In any such case, rashness or negligence of the
employee may be inconsequential for purposes
of holding the employer liable to pay the
compensation under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.
11. M.F.A. No.5040/2003 ( appaji , since
deceased and another Vs. M.Krishna and
another) D.D. 17.12.2003 .
17. In the lengthy argument, learned Advocate
appearing for respondent No.2 by analyzing the evidence
available on file, submitted that the petitioner, who is
neither dependent of the deceased Manikanta nor class I
heir of deceased Manikanta nor 3 rd party to the vehicle is
not entitle to receive compensation under Section 164 of
M.V.Act.
18. In the light of the submission made on behalf of
both the parties with reference to the judgments cited
above, I have appreciated the materials available on file.
SCCH.1 13 MVC No.6429/2022
19. In the petition , petitioner asserted that as on the
date of incident Manikanta being aged 36 years working in
Private and stated that since claim is under PA (Personal
Accident Coverage) , the disclosure of the income of the
deceased does not arise.
20. In para No.3 of the affidavit evidence PW1 stated
that as on the date of incident his brother Manikanta was
aged 33 years, first respondent, owner/insured of the
Motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179 paid Rs.360/-
towards personal accident coverage and there is a personal
accident coverage to an extent of Rs.15 lakhs and deceased
had valid driving licence to ride the Motorcycle bearing
No.KA-18-EA-1179.
21. In the copy of the aadhar card and D.L. date of
birth of Manikanta is noted as 02.05.1988. Copy of the DL
marked at Ex.P.11 shows that since 26.02.2010 Manikanta
had licence to ride motorcycle with gear. Ex.P.12 , copy of
the policy shows that respondent No.1 insured the
Motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179 under Package
Policy in which PA coverage under Section III for
registered owner cum driver (CSI) worth of Rs.15 lakhs.
SCCH.1 14 MVC No.6429/2022
22. Police records shows that Uma, W/o. Veeran is
the sister of Manikanta, present petitioner is the younger
brother of Uma, W/o.Veeran and as on the date of incident
parents of petitioner Ranjith, Manikanta, Uma are not
alive.
23. In the file there are no evidence to show that as
on the date of incident either Manikanta depended on
petitioner Ranjith or petitioner Ranjith depended on
Manikanta.
24. According to law for the time being in force, there
are lot of difference between the dependency of wife ,
children, parents on a Hindu Male and dependency
claimed by claimant who is class II legal heirs of a Hindu
Male (Manikanta).
25. As referred above, in this case petitioner Ranjith
has not disclosed the quantum of income of Manikanta as
on the date of incident and also has not explained how he
depended on Manikanta.
26. Hence, I have inferred that the judgments cited
on behalf of petitioner Ranjith are not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering
SCCH.1 15 MVC No.6429/2022
the entire evidence in the file , nature of relationship
between Ranjith , Manikanta and Uma , W/o. Veeran
(brothers and sister), I have inferred that in this case i.e.,
petitioner who filed petition under Section 164 of IMV Act
is not entitle to receive compensation from respondents
No.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the Motorcycle bearing
No.KA-18-EA-1179. Hence, issue No.2 is answered
accordingly and pass the following :
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 164 of IMV Act
seeking compensation from the respondents, who are the
owner and insurer of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA-18-EA-
1179 is hereby dismissed .
There is no order as to cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this the 23rd day of December, 2024)(J.N.SUBRAMANYA)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore.
SCCH.1 16 MVC No.6429/2022
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Ranjith dt. 31.01.2024, 08.04.2024,
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Crime detail form with
spot mahazar and sketch
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of seizure mahazar
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of Inquest Report
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of PM Report
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of IMV Report
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Chargesheet
Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of aadhar card of Ranjith
Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of
deceased
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of DL of deceased
Ex.P.12 Copy of insurance policy of motorcycle
bearing No.KA-18-EA-1179
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent :
– Nil –
Documents marked on behalf of the respondent:
– Nil-
(J.N.SUBRAMANYA)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore.