The Divisional Manager Vs Mohan S/O Lahu Katti

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶6

M.F.A NO. 21529 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM, REP. BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MOHAN S/O. LAHU KATTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶14

1.A MANGALA W/O. LATE MOHAN KATTI, AGE 50 YEARS, R/O. HIREKODI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶15

1B. SMT. RUPALI W/O. KRISHNA ASODE, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O. MANJARI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶16

1C. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. JAYASINGH KAMBALE, AGE 28 YEARS, R/O. SHIRWAD VILLAGE, TQ: SHIROL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

1D. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O. SIDHARTH KUDARANI, AGE 26 YEARS, R/O. JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶19

1E. SMT. SHASHIREKHA W/O. RAYAPPA KUDARANI, AGE 25 YEARS, R/O. JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶20

1F. SMT. BINDIYA W/O. SANJEEV KAMBLE, AGE 24 YEARS, R/O. HIREKODI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

1G. SMT. KEERTHI W/O. SANDEEP KAMBLE, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O. KAGWAD VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

1H. KISHORE S/O. MOHAN KATTI, AGE 18 YEARS, R/O. HIREKODI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

SRI. MALHARI BABU GAVI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SAMBAJI NAGAR, KAKATI, BELAGAVI.

¶24

THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELAGAVI.

¶25

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLLI AND SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADV. FOR R1A TO R1H); SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.1641/2011 MADE BY THE FAST TRACT COURT-I, CHIKKODI, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 27.11.2012 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

¶31

This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 27^th November 2012, passed in MVC No.1641/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikkodi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

¶32

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶33

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶34

It is the case of the claimant that, on 17.06.2011 at about 7:15 p.m. he met with an accident while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/W-353 from Sankeshwar towards Hirekodi village. A pickup van bearing registration No.KA-22/A-6131 came from opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries, including a compound fracture of left tibia and fibula, and

¶35

right-side hemiparesis. He claims to be suffering from permanent disability, which is affected his earning capacity.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶37

It is further contended that the claimant was aged about 50 years at the time of accident, and was earning around Rs.40,000/- per annum. On these grounds, he sought compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.

¶38

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the

¶39

Tribunal and filed written statements denying the contentions of the claimant and praying for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶40

Based on the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues.

¶41

The claimant examined two witnesses, as PW1 and PW2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

¶42

After hearing both parties and appreciating the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation as follows and directed respondent No.3 to

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶44

pay compensation amount while dismissing the claim

¶45

petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶46

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Loss of future income	Rs.2,60,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	Rs.25,829/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs.30,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs.10,000/-
5.	Loss of income of the petitioner during treatment period	Rs.2,000/-
6.	Loss of dependency	Rs.2,000/-
7.	Conveyance	Rs.2,150/-
	TOATAL	Rs.3,31,979/-
	ROUNDED OFF	Rs.3,32,000/-

¶47

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶48

appearing for both parties and perused materials available on record.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-23/W-353, in which the claimant was travelling. However, the Tribunal failed to consider this fact. He contends that to claim compensation, the claimant must approach the insurance company and cannot file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, as the

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶51

said provision applies only to third parties. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶52

Apex Court in Ramkhiladi and Anr. Vs. the United India Insurance Company & Anr¹ . He further submits that the compensation awarded under various heads was not determined based on the structured formula, and as per the

¶53

view of the Tribunal, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, compensation should have been awarded strictly in accordance with the schedule provided under the Act. On these grounds, he prays for consideration of the same.

¶54

Learned counsel for the claimant has not seriously disputed the said contention.

¶55

Perused the impugned judgment, wherein issue

¶56

No.1 framed by the Tribunal reads as follows:

¶57

1. Whether petitioner proves that on 17/6/2011 at about 7.15 p.m., near Channyanadaddi on Chikodi-Sankeshwar road, while the petitioner was returning on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-23-W-353 from Sankeshwar towards

¶58

1 Civil Appeal No.9393 of 2019, DD: 07.01.2020

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶60

Hirekodi, Pick-up Van bearing No.KA-22-A6131 of respondent No.1 came in high speed, rash and negligent manner from the side of Chikodi and dashed to the motorcycle and he sustained injuries and fractures in the accident?

¶61

In paragraph No.9 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal discussed issue No.1. The Tribunal categorically held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant. The driver of pick up van was not at all responsible for the accident. Based on this finding, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the negative.

¶62

The claimant has accepted the said finding and has not filed any appeal against the said judgment. In light of this, the Tribunal directed respondent No.3, the insurer of the motorcycle, to pay the compensation. However, the claimant cannot claim compensation against the insurer of his own vehicle, as it is a settled principle of law that an insurer indemnifies the liability of the owner of the vehicle. When the insured himself is the victim of an accident, he cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A or Section

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6068 MFA No. 21529 of 2013

¶64

166 of the M.V. Act against the insurer of his own vehicle. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal, imposing liability on respondent No.3 to pay the compensation, is not in accordance with the law, must be set aside. Consequently, as there is no liability fastened on respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation, a finding that has not been challenged, the entire judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶67

(ii) The judgment and award dated 27^th November 2012, passed in MVC No.1641/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikkodi, is set aside.

¶68