- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2851 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE, INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR, 'M' SONS ARCADE, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT, KERALA-673 001. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHAKARA K AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNACHETIAR, 2. SMT. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O. SHANKARA. K, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.100, 5TH CROSS, TANK ROAD, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 001. R Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 3. SRI. M.K. MADESH MAJOR, NO. 513, HALAHALLI EXTENSION, V.C. FARM, MANDYA-571 401. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.363, SHRI HARI COMPLEX, SEETHA VILAS ROAD, MYSORE-570 024. 5. SRI. LALU N.V. MAJOR, M/S. CLASSIC AGENCIES, SBP/18585, MANIKUNI, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, KERALA-673 001. 6. SRI. GEORGE PETER AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. PETER, AKKATTU HOUSE, PADICHIRA POST, PULPALLY, WAYANAD KERALA-673 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKASH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.S RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R3,R5 AND R6 AR SERVED.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1170/12 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES, AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,84,488/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer- Respondent No.5 challenging the judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 passed by The MACT, Additional Small Causes Court, Mysuru in MVC.No.1170/2012 (for short 'the Tribunal). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.2012, at around 11:30 p.m., the deceased, Arun Kumar S, was driving a Bolero Mahindra vehicle bearing registration No. KA- 11-A-3057, which belonged to respondent No.1. While driving near Kodishettypura, close to New Cauvery Daba, the driver of a multi-axle vehicle bearing registration No. KL-12-E-9675, owned by respondent No.3 and driven by respondent No.4, had parked the vehicle on the road without any indication or warning signal. The Bolero vehicle collided with the stationary multi-axle vehicle. As a result of the impact, Arun Kumar S sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to them. The claimants allege that the accident occurred due to the improper - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 parking and involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-12-E-9675. 3. The claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of Motar Vehicles Act. After the amendment to the claim petition, the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. He was aged about 30 years old, and that the claimants were dependent on his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the contentions of the claimants and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was driving the vehicle owned by respondent No.1. Consequently, they contended that the claimants are not entitled to compensation from respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Respondent No.5, in its written statement, contended that the deceased was employed as a Manager and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As the income of the deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/- per annum, the claim under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 Respondent No.5 denied all other allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition against it. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and one more witness as PW-2, and marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. On behalf of respondent No.5, one witness was examined as RW-1, and documents were marked as Exhibits R1 and R2. Respondent No.2 examined two witnesses as RW-2 and RW-3 and marked documents as Exhibits R3 to R8. 8. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings and evidence, awarded a compensation amount of Rs.4,84,488/- through the impugned judgment and directed respondent Nos.3 and 5 to pay the said amount. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 preferred the present appeal. 9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer (respondent No.5) and the learned counsel for the claimants. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that PW-1, in his evidence, stated the deceased’s income to be Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the claim is not maintainable under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore, it was argued that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased himself, and as such, the claim is not maintainable under either Section 163(A) or Section 166 of the Act. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly consider these aspects and has erroneously awarded compensation. Therefore, the appellant prayed to set aside the judgment against respondent No.5. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claimants had initially pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, they filed an application to amend the claim petition and restrict the deceased’s income to Rs.40,000/- per annum, so as to claim compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel further contended that since such an amendment was made - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 prior to the disposal of the matter, the same was legally permissible. 11. The learned advocate for claimant further contended that the respondent, who was a party before the Tribunal, did not object to the said amendment. Consequently, following the amendment, the income of the deceased was restricted to Rs.40,000/- per annum as required under Section 163(A) of the Act. Therefore, at this stage, the appellant’s contention challenging the maintainability of the claim is untenable. The learned counsel further submitted that under Section 163(A), it was not necessary to plead or prove rash or negligent driving — it is sufficient to establish the involvement of the vehicle. It is undisputed that the vehicle belonging to respondent No.3 was involved in the accident. Hence, the claim petition against respondent Nos.3 to 5 under Section 163(A) is maintainable, even though the deceased was charge-sheeted in relation to the accident. With these grounds, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 12. The claim petition was originally filed with the assertion that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 while working as a Manager. However, following the recording of evidence, an application was filed to amend the income and restrict it to Rs.40,000/- per annum. Consequently, the amount of compensation claimed was also revised to Rs.16,10,000/-. 13. It appears that the amendment was not seriously contested by respondent No.5, and no appeal was filed challenging the Tribunal’s order allowing the amendment. The Schedule attached to Section 163(A) appears to be based on the minimum wages act prevailing in the year 1994. The outer limit to calculate the compensation is under Schedule II as Rs.40,000/- per annum. If a person’s income exceeds this limit, the claim would not fall within the scope of the Schedule under Section 163(A). Therefore, in cases of injury or death, the victim’s income must not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum for a claim under Section 163(A) to be maintainable. 14. The Tribunal, even prior to the amendment of pleadings, had not held that the deceased’s income was Rs.15,000/- per month. The initial averment made by the claimants does not, by itself, mean that it was accepted by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 Tribunal. In fact, respondent No.5 disputed this income figure in their written statement. Subsequently, in accordance with the provisions of law, the claimants restricted the income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, relied on a judgment of this Court and held that such an amendment was legally permissible. Therefore, the claim under Section 163(A) was maintainable after restricting the income of the deceased. The case was then tried accordingly, and the award was passed. 15. The mere assertion by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, whether in the original petition or in the affidavit, is not sufficient to dismiss the claim on the ground of non-maintainability. Moreover that pleading was not supported by any evidence and was subsequently amended. Ultimately, the claimants restricted the income to Rs.40,000/- per annum, which brought the claim within the scope of Section 163(A). 16. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 163A. Special provisions as to payment of compenatio on structured formula basis (1) 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 accidenet 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. For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (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 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". 17. The Tribunal also relied on various judgments and held that, in a claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is not necessary to plead and prove rash and negligent driving. 18. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Co., and another1, the facts involved an accident where two vehicles were involved. The claimants filed the claim petition against the insurer and owner of the vehicle driven by 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 the deceased but not against the other vehicle involved in the accident. On that basis, the claim petition was dismissed. 19. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is undisputed that the vehicle belonging to respondent No.3 was involved in the accident. Therefore, the claim under Section 163(A) is maintainable, and there is no fault on the part of respondent No.1. It has been held that compensation can be claimed against the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Considering this principle, the Tribunal has rightly directed respondent Nos.3 and 5 to pay the compensation. The findings of the Tribunal do not call for any interference by this Court. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation based on the structured formula under Section 163(A). Therefore, the question of excess compensation or modification of the awarded amount does not arise. 20. For the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the above said points are answered against the appellant and proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23408 MFA No. 2851 of 2016 ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Judge, Additional Small Causes, and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru in MVC.No.1170/2012 is confirmed. iii. Whatever the amount in deposit by the insurer shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment. SD/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17