Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.7604/2009, which awarded compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the claimants. The accident involved a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EV-1850, resulting in the death of the son of respondent No.1 (owner) and respondent No.2 (mother). The insurance company contended that respondent No.1, being the owner of the vehicle, cannot claim compensation against himself, and that respondent No.2, the mother, was not dependent on the deceased's income. The court held that the owner cannot claim against himself, but the mother, as a legal representative, is entitled to claim compensation. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award in favor of respondent No.2.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Claim by Owner - Section 166 - Owner of vehicle cannot claim compensation against himself as he is both the tortfeasor and claimant - Held that such claim is not maintainable (Para 4).
B) Motor Vehicles Act - Legal Representative - Section 166 - Mother of deceased is a legal representative and can maintain claim for compensation even if not financially dependent - Held that mother is entitled to claim as a legal heir (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the owner of a motor vehicle can claim compensation against himself for the death of his son, and whether the mother of the deceased is a dependent entitled to compensation.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2010 in MVC No.7604/2009 is upheld in favor of respondent No.2 (mother).
Law Points
- Owner cannot claim compensation against himself
- Mother of deceased is a legal representative entitled to claim
- Insurance company liable to pay compensation to third party claimants
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (03) 59
MFA No. 3234 of 2011 (MV-I)
Sri. Lakshmi Narasappa for Sri. A. M. Venkatesh (for appellant), Sri. K. A. Chandrashekar (for R1), Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy (for R2)
M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ashok Rao, Smt. Bhagya Bai, Ashok Rao
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for death in motor vehicle accident.
Remedy Sought
Insurance company sought to set aside the award on grounds that owner cannot claim against himself and mother is not dependent.
Filing Reason
Insurance company challenged the Tribunal's award on the ground that respondent No.1, being the owner of the vehicle, cannot claim compensation against himself, and respondent No.2, the mother, is not dependent on the deceased's income.
Previous Decisions
Tribunal awarded Rs.4,04,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. in MVC No.7604/2009.
Issues
Whether the owner of a motor vehicle can claim compensation against himself for the death of his son?
Whether the mother of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation as a legal representative?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that respondent No.1, being the owner of the vehicle, cannot claim compensation against himself.
Appellant argued that respondent No.2, the mother, is not dependent on the deceased's income and thus not entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The owner of a vehicle cannot claim compensation against himself as he is both the tortfeasor and the claimant. However, the mother of the deceased, being a legal representative, is entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, irrespective of dependency.
Judgment Excerpts
Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the motor cycle in question... cannot make the claim against himself.
Claimant No.2 is the mother of the deceased and is not depending on the income of the deceased.
Procedural History
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru passed judgment and award dated 23.10.2010 in MVC No.7604/2009 awarding compensation. The insurance company appealed under Section 173(1) of the MV Act before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173(1), 166
