IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10139 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RAJANNA S/O NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SMT.SHIVAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE NUNEVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT (BY SRI K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.YATHISH , MAJOR NO.4, 3RD MAIN, A.D.HALLI, BANGALORE – 560 079 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O.NO - 3, NO.48 CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE – 560 001 ... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIVEKANANDA D & SRI.UTTAM S PHONDE, ADVS. FOR R1; SRI.M.S.SRIRAM, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.07.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.44/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This is the claimants’ appeal challenging the order dated 01st July 2010 passed in MVC No.44 of 2009 by the IV Additional Judge Court of Small Causes, Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in which the Tribunal dismissed the Claim petition. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal at paragraph 11 of the judgment are that, after having examined the case of the claimant, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NINGAMMA AND ANOTHER v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2009 SC 3056 wherein it has been held that if the accident has taken on account of negligence of the deceased himself, the dependants cannot seek any kind of compensation either from the owner of the vehicle or from the Insurer.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NINGAMMA (supra) wherein it is held that where a tortfeaser himself is the deceased or the victim, then he is not entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for denying the compensation is sound and proper. Further, it is also found that the accident itself is not established and no another vehicle is involved in the accident. As per the complaint and the facts of the case, the deceased himself has contributed by having a fall resulting in death. Under the circumstances, we find that there is justifiable reasons assigned by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim petition. Accordingly appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE lnn