Bangalore District Court
Ramesh Kalluraya vs P. Dinesh Kumar on 13 June, 2025
KABC020217822024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
MVC No.3303/2024
PETITIONER: 1. Sri. Ramesh Kalluraya
S/o Late Narayana
Kalluraya,
Aged about 62 years,
2. Smt. Sudha Kalluraya
W/o Ramesh Kalluraya,
Aged about 60 years,
Both are R/at
No.259, Kumbhashi Village
and Post,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi Dist.
(By Sri.Kalleshappa M.V.
Advocate/s.)
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3303/2024
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri. P. Dinesh Kumar
S/o Narayanaparushurama,
Major,
R/o No.1-259,
Parishrama,
Kumbhashi Village and Post,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi Dist.
(Ex-Parte)
2. The United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.18, Krishi Bhavan,
5th Floor,
Opp. Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore -560 001.
(By Sri. B.T.Rudra Murthy,
Advocate.)
******
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the
claimants against respondents under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “Act”)
praying for awarding compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for
the death of Jayaram P Kalluraya S/o Ramesh Kalluraya
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3303/2024
was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on
30.07.2022 at about 6.15PM.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
on 30.07.2022 the deceased Jayaram P. Kalluraya was
going towards Chouk from KPT side on NH-66 Road, at
Mangalore city by riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-
EK-5370. On the way at about 6.15pm in front of KSRTC II
depot, Kuntikana, Mangalore city and dashed the motorcycle
to a pick up goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AB-0841
and fell down, sustained grievous head injuries. Thereafter
the rider was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangalore and took
treatment as an inpatient till 26.08.2022. In the course of
treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 26.08.2022.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the
deceased Jayaram P Kalluraya was aged about 25 years. The
deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EK-
5370 which belongs to his paternal uncle i.e., the 1 st
Respondent. The 1st respondent had taken comprehensive
policy and there is coverage of compulsory personal accident
claim. The deceased had a DL to drive a motorcycle vide DL
No.KA-20180005398 issued on 16.04.2018 by RTO Udupi.
4. The 1st respondent being the RC owner of the
motorcycle and the 2nd respondent being its insurer and
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3303/2024
liable to pay PA coverage amount to the petitioners.
5. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent
No.1 did not appeared before the Court. Hence, the
respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte. In response to the
notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written
statement.
6. The respondent No.2 has filed objections by
admitting the issuance of policy in favour of the Respondent
No.1 (paternal uncle of the deceased) in respect of motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EK-5370. Further contended that as
per the police records the deceased/rider of the motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EK-5370 himself was negligent to
cause the accident and sustained grievous injuries due to
self-negligent act not due to anybody’s negligence. It had
denied the relationship of the deceased and the respondent
No.1/owner of the motorcycle. Further denied the age, and
he was a student and earnings of the deceased. Therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are arises for determination.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are
the legal heirs of the deceased Jayaram P.
Kalluraya S/o Ramesh Kalluraya?
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3303/2024
2. Whether the petitioners prove that Jayaram
P Kalluraya sustained grievous injuries due to
rash and negligent act of the driver of the
Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-AE-0841
on dated 30.07.2022 at about 6.15pm and he
died in the hospital during the course of
treatment.
3. Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so,what is the quantum?
From whom?
4. What order or award?
8. In order to substantiate the claim petition
contention, the petitioner No.2 has examined herself as PW-1
and got marked total Nineteen documents as Exs.P1 to P.19
and closed their side evidence. Inorder to prove its defence
the respondent No.2 got examined its Administrative Officer
as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & 2 and closed their side.
9. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the
counsels for the petitioner and the respondent No.2.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following
decisions:
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3303/2024
1. 2009 ACJ 2020: Ningamma and Anr. vs. United
India Ins.Co. Ltd.,
2. 2020 ACJ 627 : Ramkhiladi and Anr. Vs. United India Ins.
Co. Ltd., and Anr.
3. 2022 ACJ 1686: Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Subramaniam
and Ors.
4. 2023 CJ 1837 : Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co.
Ltd., Vs. Chandramma and Ors.
5. MFA No.8300/2011 (MV): The United India ins. Co. Ltd.,
Vs. Smt. N. Praveena and Ors.
6. 2022 ACJ 1908: New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Surjit
Mohan and Anr.
7. First Appeal No.803/2013 : Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Nagpur Divisional Office Vs. Smt. Aarti & Ors.
8. MFA 2488/2006 : The Oriental Ins. Co. Lt.d, Vs. Smt.
Mahabunni and Anr.
9. MANU/KA/0906/2003 :
10. First Appeal Order 4364/2006 (O & M) : Arvind Kumar
Vs. Sham Sunder Ravi Kumar and Ors.
11. Civil Appeal No.7402/2008 : New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., Vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors.
12. 2024 ACJ 1319 : Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Madhu H.K
and Anr.
13. MFA No.4946/2011 (MV) : The Manager, Oriental Ins.
Co. Lt.d, Vs. Smt. L. Radha and Ors.
10. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in
before this tribunal, my answers to the above Issues are as
follows:
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3303/2024
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the negatively
Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the foregoing;
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: It is not the case of the insurer that
the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased. Apart
from that the documents produced by the petitioners i.e.,
Aadhaar Card, driving license of the deceased and death
extract are clearly indicates that the petitioners are being the
parents of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the petitioners
are the legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, I answered
issue No.1 in the affirmatively.
12. Issue Nos.2 & 3: The police have filed the abated
charge sheet against the deceased. This fact has not been
denied by either side. The petition and evidence of the PW.1
has clearly depicts that the deceased was dashed the motor
cycle to pick up vehicle and caused the accident. The
tribunal has framed the issue in respect of negligence on
driver of pick up vehicle. It is well settled principle of law that
admitted facts needs not to be proved.
13. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in “2009 ACJ 2020
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3303/2024
in the case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.“, wherein it is held as under;
“18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V.
Rajni Devi, 2008 ACJ 1441 (SC), wherein one of us,
namely, Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinhal was a party, it
has been categorically held that in a case where
third party is involved, the liability of the insurance
company would be unlimited. It was also held in the
said decision that where, however, compensation is
claimed for the death of the owner or another
passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance
being governed by the contract qua contract, the
claim of the claimant against the insurance company
would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in
the said decision that section 163A of the MVA
cannot be said to have any application in respect of
an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle
himself is involved. The decision further held that the
question is no longer res integra. The liability under
Section 163A of the MVA is on the owner of the
vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as
also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the
heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a
claim in terms of section 163A of the MVA. In our
considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid
decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the
present case. In the present case, the deceased was
not the owner of the motorbike in question. He
borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The
deceased cannot be held to be employee of the
owner of the motorbike although he was authorized
to drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore,
he would step into the shoes of the owner of the
motorbike.
19. We have already extracted Section 163A of the
MVA herein before. A bare perusal of the said
provision would make it explicitly clear thatpersons
like the deceased in the present case would step into
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3303/2024the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case
wherein the victim died or where he was
permanently disabled due to an accident arising out
of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the
liability to make payment of compensation is on the
insurance company or the owner, as the case may
be as provided under section 163A. But if it is
proved that driver is the owner of the motor vehicle,
in that case the owner could not himself be a
recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the
same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear
on a reading of Section 163A of the MVA.
Accordingly, the legal representatives of the
deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the
owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed
compensation under Section 163A of the MVA.
20. When we apply the said principle into the facts
of the present case we are of the view that the
claimants were not entitled to claim compensation
under section 163A of the MVA and to that extent the
High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion
that the said provision is not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case. However, the
question remains as to whether an application for
demand of compensation could have been made by
the legal representatives of the deceased as
provided in section 166 of the MVA. The said
provision specifically provides that an application for
compensation arising out of an accident of the nature
specified in subsection (1) f section 165 may be
made by the person who has sustained the injury; or
by the owner of the property; or where death has
resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased; or by any agent
duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of
the legal representatives of the deceased, as the
case may be. When an application of the aforesaid
nature claiming compensation under the provisions
of section 166 is received, the Tribunal is required to
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3303/2024hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to
make an award which, however, would be subject to
the provisions of section 162, by determining the
amount of compensation, which is found to be just.
Person or persons who made claim for compensation
would thereafter be paid such amount. When such a
claim is made by legal representatives of the
deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was
not himself responsible for the accident by his rash
and negligent driving. It would also be necessary to
prove that the deceased would be covered under the
policy so as to make the insurance company liable to
make the payment to the heirs. In this context
reference could be made to relevant paras of section
147 of the MVA.
21. Section 147 of the MVA provides that the policy
of insurance could also cover cases against any
liability which may be incurred by the insurer in
respect of death or fatal injury to any person
including owner of the vehicle or his authorized
representative carried in the vehicle or arising out of
the use of vehicle in the public place. ….”
14. I have perused the above referred decision and it is
aptly applicable to the present case on hand. In this case
there is involvement of vehicle of the deceased who stepped
into the shoes of the original owner of the said bike and due
to rash or negligent of act of deceased the accident was
occurred as evident from the chargesheet. Therefore, when
there exists a comprehensive policy covering the owner
definitely the deceased is entitled for said amount. Further,
on perusal of Ex.R2/True copy of policy produced by the
respondent insurer, there is P.A. cover under Section III for
Registered Owner- Driver. As per the above decision the
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3303/2024
borrower i.e. the deceased in the present case is stepped into
the shoes of owner and covered under policy as the deceased
was riding the bike by borrowing the same from the owner
and he is covered under policy and consequently his LRs are
entitled to the said amount. Therefore, from the evidence
placed by the petitioners they have proved their case and
deceased himself was was riding the bike belongs to
respondent No.1, due to which he succumbed to injuries.
Hence, I answer issue No.2 in the negatively and issue
No.3 in the affirmatively.
15. Issue No.4: As discussed above the Ex.R.2 is
package policy covering the registered owner cum driver i.e.
the present deceased in this case who stepped into the shoes
of the owner. Therefore, following
ORDER
The claim petition filed by
claimants under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed.
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
(Rupees fifteen lakhs only) with
interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.2 is liable to
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3303/2024
pay the compensation to the
claimants and directed to deposit the
same within 60 days from the date of
this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to
withdraw 50% and remaining 50%
shall be invested as F.D. in any
nationalized bank for a period of 3
years.
Draw the award accordingly.
Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
(Directly typed by the Stenographer in the computer and corrected by me,
signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 13th day of
June, 2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
BANGALORE
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Smt. Sudha Kalluraya
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR in Cr.No.97/2022
Ex.P2 True copy of complaint dated 30.07.2022
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3303/2024Ex.P3 True copy of spot mahazar dated
31.07.2022Ex.P4 True copy of spot sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of Inquest
Ex.P6 True copy of Sec.304(A) charge alteration
requisition
Ex.P7 True copy of Death Intimation
Ex.P8 True copy of PM report
Ex.P9 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P10 True copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report
Ex.P11 True copy of Notice u/Sec.133 of MV Act
Ex.P12 True copy of reply to the notice u/Sec.133
of MV Act.
Ex.P13 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P14 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of my
deceased son
Ex.P15 Notarized copy of DL of my deceased Son
Ex.P16 Notarized copy of Death Certificate of my
deceased Son
Ex.P17 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner
No.1
Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of my Aadhar Card
Ex.P.19 Treatment summaryList of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri. Prashanth N.G.
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3303/2024List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of Policy
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.06.18
11:52:20 +0530