Broken Tree Branch Kills Bike Rider: Karnataka High Court Allows Legal Heirs' Claim U/S 163A Motor Vehicle Act
The Karnataka High Court recently allowed the claim filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act by legal heirs of a deceased bike rider, who was killed after a big tree branch fell on his head while riding the bike.The insurance company, in appeal against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, contended that the accident occurred because of fall of branch of eucalyptus tree...
The Karnataka High Court recently allowed the claim filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act by legal heirs of a deceased bike rider, who was killed after a big tree branch fell on his head while riding the bike.
The insurance company, in appeal against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, contended that the accident occurred because of fall of branch of eucalyptus tree and the same cannot be treated as a motorcycle accident and hence the company is not liable to pay the compensation.
However, a single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that the expression 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' used in Section 163A of the MV Act has to be given the widest interpretation.
"All that need be shown by the claimant in support of the claim is that the injury or death which is made the basis for the claim arose out of the use of a motor vehicle," it held.
The bench primarily relied on High Court's judgment in Sulochana & Ors. v. KSRTC, wherein it was held that all that need be shown by the claimant in support of the claim is that the injury or death which is made the basis for the claim arose out of the use of a motor vehicle.
The bench said, "The provision is not intended to introduce a rule of evidence merely shifting the burden of proof from the claimant to the owner and the driver of the vehicle. If the intention of the parliament behind the introduction of Section 163-A 21 was to simply shift the burden of proof to the owner or the driver of the vehicle, the provisions of Section 163-A would have been differently worded."
Therefore, the court said it has no hesitation in holding that victim or legal heirs of a victim are entitled to claim compensation in terms of Section 163-A read with Schedule II to the Act without either pleading or proving that the accident in question had resulted from any act of negligence or default on the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle.
Claimants contended that their deceased father be held as third party to the insurance policy.
The insurance company contended that it is liable to pay compensation to third party and not the owner. The claimants (respondents) contended that the deceased would become third party.
To address this contention, the bench relied on Supreme Court's judgment in Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., wherein it was held that liability under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act is on the owner of the vehicle and a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a person on whom the liability falls.
Following which the bench said, "Deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and he was not a third party. Hence, in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi, the very contention of the claimants counsel cannot be accepted."
Finally, the court held that when the additional premium had been paid towards personal accident cover to owner-cum-driver, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has to be paid to the heirs of borrower of vehicle, since he stepped into the shoes of the owner of vehicle.
The bench said, "Hence, claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- since there is explicit coverage of the insurance under the head of personal accident cover to insured-cum-driver. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest."
Accordingly, it modified the order passed by the tribunal and said that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation as against Rs.3,62,000.
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL
Case No: M.F.A. No.22468/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
Date of Order: 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
Appearance: C V ANGADI, ADVOCATE for petitioner; SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO T3