Skip to content


Smt.Anasuya W/O K.H.Lokesh, Vs. K.H Lokesh S/O HanumanthappA. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberM.F.A.No.296/2009 (MV)
Judge
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A ;
AppellantSmt.Anasuya W/O K.H.Lokesh.
RespondentK.H Lokesh S/O HanumanthappA.
Appellant AdvocateSri.Prabhakar.L.Shety, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateSri.O.Mahesn, Adv.
Excerpt:
[mr. justice n. ananda, j.] this appeal is filed under section 173(1) of m.v. act against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2008 passed in mvc no.86/2004 on the file of the i additional civil judge (sr. dn.) and a. mact. shivamogga, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation......he succumbed to injuries. therefore, claimant (mother of deceased) filed claim petition against owner of vehicle/i-respondent (husband of claimant) and insurer of vehicle. nb 04. the tribunal noticing that claim petition was filed under section 163a of the motor vehicles act, 1938 (for short, 'the act') has dispensed with proof of negligence. the tribunal has held that petition is filed under section 163a of the act, even if the accident is caused due to negligence of deceased, compensation could be awarded.5. the tribunal on consideration of policy issued by 11-respondent has held that vehicle involved in the accident is ^_ covered by act policy the i-respondent had paid a sum of rs.77/- towards third party basic premium. the tribunal considering die policy covered third party risk.....
Judgment:
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation,

2. I have heard Sri Prabhakar L.Shetty, learned counsel for claimant.

3. The claimant is the mother of deceased Srikantha and wife of I-respondent, who is the owner of Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Ne.KA~i4~L-2743. On 11.01.2003. at about 3.30 p.m.. Srikantha (since deceased) was riding Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.KA-14-L-2743 at a high speed, as a result he lost control and motor cycle dashed against road side electric pole and he suffered grievous injuries and he was admitted in Mc.Gann Hospital at Shimoga. On the same day, he succumbed to injuries. Therefore, claimant (mother of deceased) filed claim petition against owner of vehicle/I-respondent (husband of claimant) and insurer of vehicle. nB 0

4. The Tribunal noticing that claim petition was filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 (for short, 'the Act') has dispensed with proof of negligence. The Tribunal has held that petition is filed under section 163A of the Act, even if the accident is caused due to negligence of deceased, compensation could be awarded.

5. The Tribunal on consideration of policy issued by 11-respondent has held that vehicle involved in the accident is ^_ covered by Act policy The I-respondent had paid a sum of Rs.77/- towards third party basic premium. The Tribunal considering die policy covered third party risk of Rs.77/- has held that Insurance Company is not liable to pav compensation.

6. On perusal of the policy marked as Ex.R1, I find that I-respondent had paid third party basic premium of Rs.77/-. The I-respondent had not paid additional premium to cover the risk of rider or pillion rider. r ,

7. The learned counsel appearing for claimant, has relied on a decision reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 (in tire case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. & another), wherein the Supreme Court has held that owner of vehicle can only claim compensation for bodily injury to himself provided' he is specifically covered by the policy in question.

8.The learned counsel for claimant, has relied on a decision reported in 2010 (4) TA.C. 738 (Cal.) (in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Supriya Das & another), wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that in a claim petition filed under section 163A of the Act, even victim happens to be the owner of motor vehicle. Insurance Company 's liable to pay compensation provided additional premium was taken by the insurer for covering the accidental death or injury of owner to the limited extent of Rs. 3,09,000/-. In the case on hand. I-respondent had taken an Act policy by paying a sum of Rs.77/- towards third party basic premium, which did not cover the risk of rider or pillion rider. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that claimant is not entitled to compensation from the insurance company.

9. In the circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned award. As the 1-respondent -owner of vehicle is the husband of Claimant and claim petition was filed at the instance of I respondent, there is no need to enhance the compensation.

10. In the result, I pass the following.

The appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //