- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30017 MFA No. 4103 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4103 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI JOSE KATTIKARAN AGED 53 YEARS, S/O LATE ANTHONY KATTIKARAN, (SINCE DEAD, REP.BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - APPELLANT NO.2 AND RESPONDENT NO.1 - VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2019) 2. MISS TESSA JOSE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O JOSE KATTIKARAN, RESIDING AT CUKKOOS NEST, GORIGUDDA, 2ND CROSS, VALENCIA, MANGALORE D.K. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AKHIL S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.A. ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SALLY J. KATTIKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O JOSE KATTIKARAN, RESIDING AT CUKKOO'S NEST, GORIGUDDA, 2ND CROSS, VALENCIA, MANGALORE, D.K. Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30017 MFA No. 4103 of 2014 2. THE CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, 16-1-44, S.R.COMPLEX, BENDOORWELL, MANGALORE-575 002, D.K. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMAVATHI A.J., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. Y.P. VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.1.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.43/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, D.K., MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. 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 claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 9th January 2014, passed by the IV Addl.District Judge and Addl.MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.43/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30017 MFA No. 4103 of 2014 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 03.07.2011, at about 1.20 p.m., the deceased, Antony J. Kattikaran, was travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-07-BR/2, from Lalbagh towards Lady Hill, near Pabbas, he lost control of the vehicle, as a result, the said vehicle hit the road divider and caused the accident and said Antony sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, he died on the same day. 4. Claimants are father and sister of the deceased. The deceased was aged 21 years and he was studying in final year Engineering. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 5. The respondent No.1 is the mother of the deceased and owner of the said car. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1 has not filed written statement. Respondent No.2 filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioners. It further stated that claim petition is not maintainable since respondent No.1 is none other than the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30017 MFA No. 4103 of 2014 wife of claimant No.1 and mother of the deceased. She has also become the legal heir of the deceased. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 12 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-12. The respondents have not led evidence, but got marked one document as Ex.R-1. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the materials available on record, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable. Same is challenged in the present appeal. 9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties. During the pendency of the appeal, according to the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, both - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30017 MFA No. 4103 of 2014 appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 were dead. The question involved in this case is not res integra and the same is already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Sinitha and others (SLP (C) No.6513/2007, decided on 23.11.2011), wherein it is held that under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, claim petition is maintainable against the owner of the vehicle even if the accident occurs due to the negligence of rider of the vehicle belonging to the respondent/owner. 10. However, in the subsequent judgments, in the case of Ramkhiladi and another -vs- United India Insurance Company and another,1 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person cannot be a claimant, as well as the recipient. When the accident was caused by the owner of the vehicle or borrower of the said vehicle from the owner, 1 AIR 2020 SC 527 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30017 MFA No. 4103 of 2014 said borrower steps into the shoes of owner of the vehicle, hence, claim petition is not maintainable under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. 11. In the present case, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, after the death of said Antony, even the mother would also become the legal heir to the estate of the deceased and she cannot step into the shoes of claimant, as well as recipient. 12. During the pendency of the appeal, both claimant No.1 and respondent No.1 are reported to be dead. Therefore, the only legal heir left is claimant No.2, who steps into the shoes of owner of the vehicle. Under such circumstances also, she cannot be a recipient, as well as claimant. Hence, the law laid down in the above said judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which does not call for any interference by this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30017 MFA No. 4103 of 2014 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 9th January 2014, passed in MVC.No.43/2012, by the IV Addl.District Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, stands confirmed. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11