- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5130 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. SYED YASEEN, S/O. MR. SYED MUJAHID PASHA, AGE: 22 YEARS, R/O. NO.2, KHB ROAD, KANAKA NAGAR, RT NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. NASREEN BANU, W/O. SYED MUJAHID PASHA, R/O. NO.9/13, 2ND MAIN, EJIPURA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 047. 2. THE MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.69, II FLOOR, J.P. & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, NEAR ICICI FIRST SOURCE, MILLS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. 3. SRI. M. VENKATESHAM, S/O. SRI. MANJU, R/A NO.1259/3, NEW STREET, RATTINAMAGALAM VILLAGE & POST, ARNI TALUK, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 TAMILNADU - 606 601. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADV FOR R2; SRI. B. A. RAMAKRISHNA., ADV FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2022, SERVICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2021, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.2508/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 1st October 2014, passed by the Member Principal Judge M.A.C.T., Bengaluru, (SCCH-1), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2508/2012, seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, on 10.11.2011, at around 6.45 p.m., the claimant met with an accident due to involvement of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-MP-5786 and a lorry bearing registration No.TN-25-V-7525, Kolar- Bengalore on NH-4 road, near Mailapura gate. As a result, he sustained fracture of left temporal and other injuries. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered permanent disability. He spent Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The claimant has filed this petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-MP-5786 and the claimant was driver of the said car. Respondent No. 3 is the owner and respondent No.4 is the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-25-V-7525. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex-parte and respondent Nos.2 and 4 appeared through their respective - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 Advocates. Respondent No.2 in its written statement, denied the contentions of the claimant and it also contended that accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. Therefore, he is not entitled to compensation. Moreover, he is not third party to respondent No.2 and hence, he cannot file the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. Respondent No.4 denied the contentions of the claim petitioner and further contended that the claimant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the road divider, crossed it, went to other side of road divider and hit the lorry bearing registration No.TN-25-V-7525. The manner in which the accident occurred indicates that the claimant himself was negligent in driving his vehicle. Therefore, respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 8. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 12 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-12. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 examined two - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked documents as Exs.R- 1 to R-7. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. Therefore, he is not entitled to compensation from the respondents and dismissed the claim petition by the impugned judgment dated 1st October 2014. The same is challenged by the claimant in the present appeal. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the MV Act'), there is no need to plead and prove rash and negligent driving of drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. Section 163-A of MV Act is based on no-fault liability. Hence, proving of involvement of vehicle is sufficient. Hence, finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. 12. He further contends that during the pendency of this appeal, Motor Vehicles Act is amended and Section 163-A - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 of the Act is omitted and in its place Section 164 has been inserted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Urmila Halder1 held that Section 164 must be given retrospective effect to award the compensation to the accident which has occurred prior to the amendment also. That was followed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.9652/2013 clubbed with MFA No.9653/2013 dated 02.04.2025. In this case claimant sustained grievous injuries and he produced the wound certificate to prove it. Hence, prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as per Section 164 of the MV Act. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi And Another Vs. United India Insurance Company and Another2 respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay the compensation. Since driver of the car is not third party. He steps in the shoes of owner. Hence, he cannot claim compensation from respondents Nos.1 and 2. As 1 2025 ACJ 244 2 (2020) 2 SCC 550 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 per terms of policy, liability of the owner is covered. There is no such provision that in the place of owner someone would get compensation. He further stated that as per Section IV of the said policy, in case of death or bodily injury resulting 100% permanent disability, in that case, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. In this case, even the claimant has not examined the doctor who has treated him, to assess the disability. Under these circumstances, the claimant is not entitled for compensation from respondent Nos.1 and 2, even under the personal insurance cover of the owner of the vehicle. With these reasons, Prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. The Tribunal, in detailed discussion, has narrated the fact of the accident and rightly held that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant. Hence, he cannot claim compensation from other vehicle. 15. He further contended that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is amended in 2019 and Section 164 is substituted to Section 163-A of MV - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 Act. It is not retrospectively applicable. There is no such reference in the enactment. Under such circumstances, it cannot be applied retrospectively. 16. He further contended that under Section 164 of MV Act, amount of compensation is fixed. In this case, except evidence of PW-1, the claimant has not examined the medical officer to prove permanent disability. Even the claimant has not proved the injury sustained by him. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that he sustained grievous injury or is suffering from permanent disability. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly dismissed the claim petition. It does not call for any interference and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 17. Following points arise for consideration: (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition? If not then whether he is entitled to compensation under Section 164 of the MV Act? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 18. I have gone through the impugned judgment. The Tribunal, after detailed discussion of the evidence available on record, held that the prosecution papers produced by both the parties established that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. On that count, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 19. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to Section 163-A of the MV Act to consider the said point. Section 163-A of the MV Act (prior to amendment of the year 2019) is reads as under: "163(A)-(1) Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the second schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." (emphasis supplied) 20. On reading the said section, it is no-fault liability. There is no need to prove the negligence of driver or rider of the vehicle. It is sufficient to prove involvement of the vehicle. It is true that, looking at the materials on record, the accident occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the claimant. On that count, the claim petition cannot be dismissed because it was not necessary to plead or prove as to who was responsible for the accident. It is sufficient to prove involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant and hence, he is not entitled to compensation is not tenable and calls for interference. 21. PW-1 in his evidence stated about the injury sustained by him. He has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P-6 and the discharge summary given by Manipal Hospital at - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 Ex.P-8. The said documents reveal that he sustained a concussion with left temporal fracture. It is true that the claimant has not examined doctor who issued the said certificate or proved the disability, but the wound sustained by him is grievous in nature, which needs to be considered. 22. If he assesses the compensation under the provision of 163-A of the Act, it is necessary for the claimant to prove that he has suffered permanent disability. But under Section 164 of the MV Act, it does not say that proving permanent disability is required. If we compare the Section 163-A and 164 of the MV Act, more or less they are similar. Under Section 164-C, the Central Government has to make rules regarding the implementation of the said provision. It appears so far any such rules have not been framed by the Central Government and published it. Therefore, unless the Rules are framed specifying guidelines to assess the compensation or interpretation of the provision of Section 164 of MV Act, it has to be followed as it exists. 23. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Ram Murti and Others Vs. Punjab - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 State Electricity Board3, is pertaining to Section 140 of the MV Act and is not relevant to the facts of the present case. The case of Urmila (supra), in paragraph No.10 it is observed as under: "10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and we agree with the view taken. We may, however, add that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. In the present case, the liability of the appellant insurance company has not been interfered with. Only the computational mode and the modality have been further clarified, which rightly has been noted by the High Court and accordingly, the claim has been enhanced to Rs.5,00,000. As 50 per cent of the compensation amount was stayed by this court, the same be paid to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment within eight weeks." 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment observed that Section 164 of the MV Act is applicable retrospectively. 25. The coordinate Bench of this court in the case of H. Girish and Another Vs. Pradeep Kumar Raju and Another 3 2023 ACJ 631 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 in MFA Nos.9652/2013 and 9653/2013, dated 02.04.2025, following the judgment in the case of Urmila (supra), awarded the compensation under Section 164 of MV Act and applied it retrospectively. I do not find there is any reason to deny the said benefit to the claimant of the present case. 26. The claim petition is not maintainable against respondent Nos.1 and 2, since they are owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-MP-5786, in which the claimant was the driver. As per the law laid down in the Ramkhiladi (supra) case, he cannot claim compensation against his owner and insurer. He is not third party. Hence, claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not maintainable. 27. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are third parties and the said vehicle was involved in the accident. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation from the respondent Nos.3 and 4. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.4, being insurer, is liable to indemnify respondent No.3. Accordingly, above said question is answered in favour of claimant. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 28. The claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of claim petition till its realization, excluding the period of delay of 172 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 1st October 2014, passed in MVC.No.2508/2012, by the Member Principal XVI Addl.Judge and M.A.C.T., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is set aside; iii) The claim petition is allowed; iv) The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, excluding delayed period of 172 days in filing the appeal. v) The claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. vi) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22932 MFA No. 5130 of 2015 vii) Respondent No.4 being insurer is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of award. viii) On deposit of the same Tribunal shall release entire amount to claimant on due acknowledgment. ix) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8