- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2015 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6405 OF 2014(MV-D) IN MFA No. 293/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.RACHAIAH, S/O LATE MUGASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SMT. SAKAMMA, W/O RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.42, MARISWAMAPPA GARDEN, AJAD NAGAR (VITAL NAGARA) CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560026. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JAYATHIRTHA K.R., S/O K.S. RAGHAVENDRA, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.138, 17TH CROSS, 1ST "A" MAIN ROAD, GANGAMMA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, ASHOKNAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050. Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, OPP: VANIVILAS HOSPITAL K.R. ROAD, KOTE, BENGALURU -560002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.R.RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.307/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & C.J.M, MACT, RAMANAGARA, IN MFA NO. 6405/2014 BETWEEN: 1. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. VANI VILAS HOSPITAL, K.R.ROAD, KOTE, BENGALURU-560002 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER-MOTOR TP HUB THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS NO.9, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RACHAIAH S/O LATE MUGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 BOTHT ARE R/A NO.42, MARISWAMAPPA GARDEN AJAD NAGAR(VITTAL NAGAR) CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560026. 3. SRI JAYATHIRTHA K.R., S/O K.S.RAGHAVENDRA MAJOR R/A NO.138, 17TH CROSS, 1ST 'A' MAIN ROAD, GANGAMMA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560050. ...RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 11.10.2017, SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.307/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT, RAMANAGARA, THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.06.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT Both these appeals arises out of judgement and award dated 17/06/2014 in MVC.No.307/2011 passed by Additional Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM at Ramanagara (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Insurer has filed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 MFA.No.6405/2014 and claimants have filed MFA.No.293/2015. Both these matters are taken up together for disposal. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 12.07.2011 deceased Somasekhara @ Sony, after completion of his work was returning on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HJ-625 on BM road at Bengaluru. At Dasappanadoddi gate due to skid of motorcycle, he fell down and sustained grievous head injuries. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 13.07.2011. 4. The claimants being the parents of the deceased filed this claim petition for compensation under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'Act') seeking compensation of ₹10,00,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HJ-625. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement, denying contents of the claim petition. It has further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance. It also contended that the incident occurred due to negligence of rider of the vehicle and the policy does not cover the risk of owner or rider of the vehicle, but only third party, Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues in this regard. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. Respondent No.2 - insurer on his behalf examined one - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 witness as RW-1 and marked Ex.R1. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW.1 and one document was marked as Ex.C1. 8. After hearing both the parties the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,89,488/- by the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard the arguments. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that amount of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and hence prayed to enhance the same. 11. The learned counsel for insurer contended that accident took place due to self negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. He borrowed the said vehicle from the respondent No.1. He steps in the shoes of owner of the vehicle. Hence, his legal heirs cannot claim compensation against owner as well as insurer of the offending vehicle. He cannot be claimant and recipient. Tribunal has not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 considered this point. In the case of Ram Khiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,1 it is held that in such cases, petition filed under 163(A) or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act') is not maintainable. Similar law is laid down in the case of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Jyothi, judgment dated 18.03.2025 in MFA.No.23063/2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, claimants are not entitled for compensation. 12. When a claim petition is filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has to decide the involvement of alleged vehicle in the accident. It is not necessary to decide as to who was responsible for the accident. Thus, even if owner or borrower of the vehicle is responsible for the accident, insurer is liable to pay compensation. In this case, the rider of the vehicle was not the owner and third party. Hence, claim petition is maintainable. The Tribunal has considered this point and 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 awarded the compensation. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement and prayed to enhance the compensation. 13. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for claimant contended that in the case of Chandrakanth Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Act is maintainable. In the case of Vithal vs. Parashuram and anr3, in the similar facts, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that claim petition under Section 163(A) is maintainable. Therefore, contentions of the insurer is not tenable. 14. Undisputed facts in this case is that the offending vehicle involved in this accident is bearing registration No.KA-05-HJ-625. It was belonging to respondent No.1 and it was insured with respondent No.2. Deceased Somashekhar was borrower of the said vehicle 2 (2020) ACJ 2552 3 2021(3) KLJ 413 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 from respondent No.1. Accident has not occurred due to collision of the vehicle but due to skid of the vehicle the rider fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants are parents of the deceased. On these back ground let me consider whether claim petition is maintainable. 15. The only question arises for consideration in this case is: Whether the claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act by the borrower of the vehicle against the owner and the insurer of the same vehicle is maintainable? 16. I have anxiously gone through the materials available on record. Insurer before the Tribunal contended that claim petition is not maintainable under Section 163(A) of the Act, if rider of the insured vehicle met with an accident due to his own negligence. Relying on the judgments produced by the claimants, the Tribunal held that such a claim petition is maintainable under Section - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 163(A) of the Act, since there is no need to prove the negligence. The compensation will be awarded on the basis of 'No fault liability'. 17. Insurer in the present appeal contends that the claim petition is not maintainable against owner of the very same vehicle by the legal heirs of borrower of the vehicle, when accident took place due to negligence of the borrower. This point is not res integra. Recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd4 it was held that if borrower died in a vehicle accident due to his own negligence, the claim petition cannot be filed by his legal representative, under Section 163(A) of the Act, against the owner of the said vehicle. 18. Similar law is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Khiladi (referred supra) A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Ss.163-A and 147 - Claim petition under S.163-A, held, not maintainable by borrower/permissive user of vehicle against owner 4 (2009) 13 SCC 710 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 and/or insurer of said vehicle, as such borrower/permissive user steps into shoes of owner, and owner cannot both be claimant and recipient - In a claim under S.163-A, deceased/victim has to be a third party in relation to vehicle in question- Mere, own-use of motor vehicle by owner/borrower/permissive user does not entitle such person(s) to maintain S.163-A petition against Insurer of their own/borrowed vehicle - Owner/borrower/permissive users are not "third parties" In relation to their own/borrowed vehicle and hence are not covered by statutory insurance under S.147 - Thus, claim of owner/borrower/permissive user would be limited to personal accident coverage re own-use of the vehicle, if any, strictly as per contract of insurance covering the borrowed vehicle - Fact that S.163-A claim is based on no-fault liability principle only means that fault or negligence or wrongful act, neglect or default of driver/owner of offending vehicle does not need to be established for award of compensation under S.163-A/Sch.II - This does not mean that it is unnecessary to even file S.163-A petition against driver/owner/insurer of offending vehicle which caused the accident. B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.163-A - Fact that S.163-A claim is based on no-fault liability principle only means that fault or negligence or wrongful act, neglect or default of driver/owner of offending vehicle does not need to be established for award of compensation as per Sch.II - That does not mean that it is unnecessary to even file S.163-A petition against driver/owner/insurer of offending vehicle which caused the accident - Hence, held, owner/borrower/permissive user cannot maintain S.163-A claim in relation to use of their own vehicle - Tort law - Strict/No-fault liability. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Jyothi and ors decided on 18.03.2025 in MFA.No.2306/2023 following the judgment - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 in the case of Ningamma (referred supra), held that in such a circumstances claim petition is not maintainable. 19. The claimants relied on the judgment in the case of Chandrakanth Tiwari (referred supra). The facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case. In that case, owner/borrower of the two wheeler riding the vehicle along with the pillion rider. Due to negligence of borrower/owner of the vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident. Claim petition was filed due to death of pillion rider. Considering the said facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in such event the legal heirs of deceased are entitled to compensation from the owner of the vehicle since a pillion rider is a third party. In the case of vital vs. parashuram(referred supra), claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) seeking compensation for death of a pillion rider, who was the wife of the owner of the vehicle. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court held that though she was the wife of the deceased but she was a third party and hence legal heirs are entitled for compensation. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 20. In this case, undisputedly, diseased had borrowed vehicle bearing No.KA-05-HJ-625. It was belonging to respondent No.1. The said vehicle met with accident and it occurred due to skid of the motor cycle. Borrower of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. He steps in the shoes of owner of the vehicle. The policy of insurance purchased by respondent No.1 covers the risk of third party. The legal heirs of the borrower of the vehicle will not become the third party. Therefore, recipient and payer of the compensation cannot be one and the same. Hence, the law laid down in the above said judgments i.e. RamKhiladi, Ningamma, Smt. Jyothi is sparely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, claim petition is not maintainable. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 21. The claimant further contends that insured paid additional premium of Rs.50/- covering the risk of owner cum driver. According to policy condition, insurer is liable to pay fixed sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in case of a death of borrower/owner. Therefore, alternatively submits that claimants are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- as held in the Ram Khiladi's case. The learned counsel for insurer submitted that no extra premium has been paid to cover the risk of owner-cum-rider of the vehicle. Hence, claimants are not entitled for even Rs.1,00,000/- as stated by the claimants. 22. I have perused Ex.R1. It does not show that additional premium of Rs.50/- has been paid by the insured. Gross premium of Rs.380/- has been paid and said column of premium payable towards PA cover of owner/rider is kept blank. Under these circumstances, claimants are not entitled for compensation under that count also. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the claim petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.6405/2014 is allowed. ii. MFA.No.293/2015 is dismissed. iii. The judgement and award dated 17.06.2014 passed by the, Principal Senior Judge, MACT, Ramanagar in MVC.No.307/2011 is set aside iv. Petition filed under Section 163(A) year motor vehicles act is dismissed as not maintainable. v. Whatever amount deposited by insurer-appellant shall be refunded to insurer on due acknowledgement. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26804 MFA No. 293 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6405 of 2014 Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2