Claimants sought motor accident compensation for a driver who died when the borrowed car he was driving toppled. Holding the deceased himself negligent and the tort-feasor, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim under Section 166 and dismissed the appeal and amendment application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:47810-DB MFA No.2850/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2850/2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT. VEERANNA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADV., A/W SRI. HRISHIKESH, ADV.,)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:47810-DB MFA No.2850/2017
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DIST-572216.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA K.B. ADV., FOR R1 SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.1483/2014 ON 17.10.2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT ARSIKERE AND AWARD OF COMPENSATION OF 80,00,000/- AND DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY TO DEPOSIT THE AWARD AMOUNT WITH 12% INTEREST PER ANNUM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.10.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT & ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2024
( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL )
Challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1483/2014 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere, claimants have filed this appeal.
were the respondents in MVC No.1483/2014 before the
Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.
It was contended that the deceased was driving Fiat Linea Car bearing registration No.KA-06 N-5997 from Mallasandra Village to Arasikere town along with his father, sister and her children. Near Mylanahalli gate, Arsikere, he drove the car in high speed, rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, lost control over the car, as such the car toppled on the road and accident occurred. Ravisha sustained fatal injuries on his head and succumbed to the injuries. His dead body was shifted to Jayachamarajendra Government Hospital. Doctor conducted postmortem. It was also contended that Ravisha was a BBMP contractor with several ongoing projects in his hand, was earning Rs.3,00,000/- p.m., was an income tax assessee and was the only earning member of the family. The Arasikere
Rural police have registered the FIR in Crime No.149/2014 and on investigation, filed abated charge sheet against Sri.S.N.Ravisha for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). They sought for grant of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:47810-DB MFA No.2850/2017
contended that the claimants have exorbitantly claimed the compensation, denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of respondent/insurer RW-1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence recorded the finding that the claim petition filed by the heirs of tort-feasor is not maintainable in law under Section 166 of the Act and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal seeking for compensation.
miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the accident in question occurred due to tyre burst of the vehicle as a result of which the vehicle toppled down and the driver of the vehicle died. The Tribunal failed to consider the same and recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It is also submitted that the claimants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the claim petition which was erroneously dismissed by the Tribunal and this Court can now consider the said amendment and allow the claim petition.
1 (1970) 3 SCC 891
2 (2009) 13 SCC 710
accident is caused due to bursting of tyre, hence, the dependants are entitled for compensation. He seeks to allow the appeal.
award of the Tribunal calls for any interference”?
ANALYSIS
Sri.N.S.Ravisha filed claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of Sri.N.S.Ravisha in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.06.2014. The averments in the claim petition are that the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha drove Fiat Linea car bearing registration No.KA-06 N-5997 in high speed, rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules,
3 (1977) 2 SCC 441
4 MFA No.3053/2007 dt.10.01.13
5 MFA No.32435/2010 dt. 06.06.13
6 MFA No.6131/2009 dt. 06.07.11
lost control over the same, due to which the car toppled on the road leading to his death. The wife of the deceased i.e. claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that accident occurred due to tyre burst. The said portion of the evidence is contrary to her own pleading. Hence, such evidence is unacceptable. The pleading and evidence available on record indicate that the claimants have taken clear stand before the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha.
claimants have made an attempt to amend the claim petition by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to amend the claim petition by bringing the new plea i.e. "the driver side tyre had burst as a result of which, the car tilted, the driver lost control and the accident has caused".
maintaining the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Ningamma's , case referred to supra has clearly held that when an application for claim of compensation is made under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award. It has further observed that when such claim is made by the 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 and 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 payment to the legal heirs. In the instant case, admittedly the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being self tort-feasor, the legal heirs cannot claim any compensation for his death, otherwise it would amount to a person who committed breach getting the compensation for his own wrongs. In the instant case, the deceased has borrowed the vehicle in question from respondent No.1, hence, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and for the
negligence of the owner or borrower of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to indemnify for such wrongs. Our view gains support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu B.Mehta and another, referred to supra. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company referred to supra also support our view with regard to entitlement of compensation by the heirs of the deceased when the deceased himself is tortfeasor.
NC: 2024:KHC:47810-DB MFA No.2850/2017
contention urged by the claimants merits no consideration and is accordingly rejected.
view that the impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference.
following:
ORDER
I.A.No.1/2024 and the appeal are dismissed.
Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE
Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether heirs of a deceased driver who was himself the tort-feasor can claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Whether an amendment introducing a tyre-burst plea could be permitted at the appellate stage?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Applied¶14
(2009) 13 SCC 710 · Who else cites this
Minu B.Mehta and another Vs. B.R.Nayan and anotherRelied on¶14
(1977) 2 SCC 441 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
G. Nagarathna
Samtathraj
S. Shakunthalamma
Shivalingappa
G. Manjunatha
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
K.S. Mudagal
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
