2. It is the case of the Petitioner that:

3. The Chethan was aged about 21 years and was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was studying 2nd year Bcom. Due to sudden and untimely demise of the Chethan, petitioner was undergoing great mental shock, agony and petitioner lost her loving son. The petitioner spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and cremation. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- from the respondents.

4. After service of summons, Respondent No.1 to 4 appeared through their respective counsel and only respondent No.1 and 3 have filed written statement.

5. The 1st respondent filed its written statement by denying the entire averments of the petition and further contends that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. That the driver of the bus noticed that the deceased Chethan was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-W-9218 with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from Malladatta towards Arkalgud and 5 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 driver of the bus tried to avoid the accident and served the vehicle to the left of road, but Chethan came from opposite direction and dashed the front portion of the bus, resulting grievous injury to the rider of the motor cycle and police have filed FIR against the deceased for the rash and negligent driving. The claim made by the petitioner is unreasonable and higher side. Hence prays to dismiss the petition with cost.

6. The respondent No.3 stated in his written statement that they issued policy against motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-W-9218 which is valid from 21-11- 2017 to 20-11-2018. The liability/obligation of the 1st respondent shall be strictly subject to the terms and conditions, exceptions and limits and endorsements of/to the policy compliance of 64VB of Insurance Act. the rider of the motor cycle called a third party and as such not covered under the provisions of the MV Act . The police have filed the charge sheet against the deceased. That 6 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 Section 163A implies to two basic components/ingredients i.e.., the victim/injured and victim cannot be the same person and therefore the injured has fixed amount of compensation without proving the fault of the user of the vehicle The victim and injurer as one and the same person and granting compensation for one's own fault/negligent act is not warranted. Except this all other defences are formal in nature and among other grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

7. On the basis of above pleadings, this tribunal has framed the following:

8. In order to prove the above said Issues, Petitioner got examined herself as PW-1, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 documents. The respondent No.1 got examined its driver P.R.Rangappa as RW-1 and got marked Ex-R1 to 4. The respondent No.3 got examined its Manager as RW-1 and got marked Ex-R5.

9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents.

10. The advocate for the 3rd respondent has filed written arguments and along with decisions of Hon'ble Apex court. In his written argument, he stated that, the 8 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 above claim petition has been filed by legal heir of deceased Chethan said to have been caused because of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing reg.No.KA-57-F2542. while the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-41-W-9218 on 5-3-2018. The 3rd respondent specifically took contention that, the above petition is not maintainable against this respondent and disputed claims of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent has not received any premium to cover risk of the rider of the said motor cycle. Hence this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. If any under the said policy, the present petition is bad for mis- joinder of unnecessary parties as the 3rd respondent is unnecessary parties to this proceedings. Further he stated that, the deceased being a rider of the insured vehicle which is allegedly involved in the accident, he by no stretch of imagination be called a 3rd party. Qua the vehicle and as such not covered under the provisions of 9 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 MV Act and under the policy. Further he stated in his written argument that, the deceased was riding the insured motor cycle without possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. This respondent specifically disputed the driving knowledge of the alleged deceased. The petitioner has not produced driving licence. Hence he seeking kindly be please to take adverse inference against the deceased. The insured had knowingly entrusted the insured vehicle to the rider, who had no valid and effective driving licence. Therefore this respondent is not liable to indemnify the liability if any the alleged cause of action by violating the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy of the insured vehicle stands in the name of one K.S.Venkatesh S/o K.N.Shivanna Karigowdanahalli, Dombaranahally, Turuvekere, Tumkur. As on the date of alleged accident, the petitioner did not made above owner of the vehicle as a party to the proceedings. During the 10 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 stage of arguments, they implead above person in this case. The 2nd respondent has not reported the alleged cause of action, particulars of the rider, injured etc., to the 3rd respondent as required U/s 134© of MV Act . The jurisdictional police have not forwarded any information in respect of the cause of action as required U/s 158(6) of MV Act . In support of the contention of 3rd respondent, it has examined company official as RW-1 and marked Ex-R1 to 10 and he relied decision ILR 2003 KAR 3525 SC and prayed for dismissal of the petition against this respondent.

11. The learned 1st respondent advocate vehemently submitted his argument that the present petition is not maintainable and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petition has been filed by the petitioners by suppressing material facts and falsely claiming that they are the dependants of deceased. The deceased was student. The deceased was riding the 11 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 motor cycle in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, he came from opposite direction and dashed against the front portion of the bus resulting grievous injury to the driver of the motor cycle and he lost his breath. The driver of the KSRTC bus immediately filed a complaint to the jurisdictional police, due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the present accident occurred. The driver of the bus made all possible efforts to avoid the accident, but due to negligent driving of the rider of motor cyclist the present accident occurred. The driver of the KSRTC bus has examined before this tribunal and he produced Ex-R1 to R4, it can be seen from Ex-R3 and 4, the photo copies of accident and spot, the deceased did not wear the helmet and wear the earphone and came in a opposite direction and he himself hit the front portion of the KSRTC vehicle. There is no any negligent on the part of the KSRTC driver. The KSRTC bus was extremely in the left side, the motor 12 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 cyclist came in opposite side, he himself hit the bus. The jurisdictional police carried detailed investigation and submitted final report against deceased i.., motor cyclist. Therefore this respondent is not responsible for the accident. Hence he is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence he pray for dismissal of the petition against respondent No.1. In support of his argument, he placed 13 decisions.

1. New India Assurance co., Ltd., Vs Neelakoti Kantamma and others -High Court of Hyderabad. In this case Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad held that-due to negligence of victim, accident occurred, motor cycle owned by some one due to failure of breaks, fell in ditch and sustained fatal injuries, the legal heir of deceased filed a claim petition U/s 163A, the insurance company contended that the accident occurred due to fault of deceased, but no evidence lead to establish the same. In 13 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 such circumstances, claim application U./s 163A maintainable and insurance company is liable : held yes.

National Insurance co., Ltd., Vs Sinitha and others SLP 6513/2007 dd.23-11-2011, 2012 ACJ(1) Division Bench Supreme Court of India. Claim application for compensation made U/s 163A can be defeated either by owner or by insurance company by pleading and establishing that accident was based on the wrongful act, negligent or default of the victim of accident Held: Yes.

In this case, deceased was driving the motor cycle which hit the stone, but insurance company failed to establish that he was negligent. Insurance company also lead no evidence to establish the relationship between the deceased and owner of the vehicle or that deceased represented the owner and was not a 3rd party. Insurance company is liable.

United India insurance co., Vs Rekha and others- High Court of Rajasthan at Jodpur 2007 ACJ 2614. In 14 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 this case, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that, claim petition filed U/s 163A is maintainable where the victim of the accident was himself negligent. Insurance co., is liable to pay compensation to victim.

High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-Untied India insurance co., Ltd., Vs Rathish and others-Division Bench 2012 ACJ 2206. In this case held that, there is a collusion between van and motor cycle. Motor cyclist and two pillion riders sustained injuries and one of them succumbed to the injuries, claimants filed claim application against driver, owner and insurance company of van U/s 163A, tribunal held insurance company of van liable to pay compensation. The insurance company preferred appeal contending that, when more than one vehicle is involved in the accident onus and insurance companies of all vehicle are liable to answer claim. The owner ad insurance company liable to pay compensation extent of 50%, the question was involved for 15 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 consideration whether claimant has unfettered right to claim compensation U/s 163A against either or both owners and insurance companies of the vehicles involved in the accident held: yes.

United India Insurance co., Ltd., Vs Shanthkumar and another -2015 ACJ 2630 High Court of judicature at Madras. Application filed U/s 163A tribunal can award compensation on structured formula without going into the aspect of wrongful act or negligence of owner/driver of vehicle. The said applicants entitle for compensation under no fault liability U/s 140.

New India Assurance co., Ltd., Vs S.Muana and others . Te claim application filed U/s 163A considering the concept of just compensation explained by Apex court in Pranay Sethi and keeping in view of the judgment, R.K.Malik just compensation would include future prospects, loss of love and affection and loss of expectation of life.

SCCH-26 National insurance company Vs Harjith Singh and others in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chadigarh 2016 ACJ 2315. The claim petition filed by victim U/s 163A who sustained death or injury due to their own negligence whether insurance company would be liable for pay the compensation. In this case held that, No. Insurance co., liability as per Section 140 will be restricted to Rs.25,000/- in case of injury resulting permanent disability and Rs.50,000/- in case of death.

Fazaluddin and others Vs Oriental insurance co, Ltd., and others. MFA 6234/2009 DD 1-4-2013 High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. 2015 ACJ 1271. Application U/s 163A contributory negligence by joint forfeitures, the cause of accident is not a question to be decided and mere involvement of the vehicle is sufficient to entitle person claiming compensation. The owner and insurance co., of the scooter jointly and severally 17 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 liable and claimants are entitle to receiver compensation from any of the tortfeasors. Held: yes.

United India insurance co., Vs Mathai and others - High court of Kerala at Ernakulam 2010 ACJ 510. The claim petition filed U/s 163A by the deceased bachelor aged of 23 years, tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased, the contention of the deceased is a bachelor, deduction should be normally be 50% whether tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd for personal expense of the deceased, held that No. In absence of any judicial binding pronouncement mandating the deduction to be anything other than what is provided in this statute tribunal was correct in deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased.

Shahazadi Bee and others Vs Managing directors, APSRTC corporation and others. High court of Andra Pradesh at Hyderabad. 2004 ACJ 1773. In this case held that, when application filed U/s 163A, claimants 18 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 need not prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It would suffice if claimants prove that accident has taken place while the vehicle was in use for claiming compensation.

Purusottama Mishra Vs Balaji Sahu and others . High Court of Orrissa at cuttack 1994 ACJ 1107. this application filed U/s 166 registered owner sold and delivered possession of the vehicle prior to the date of accident but the registration continued in his name on the date of accident. Whether registered owner is liable to pay compensation. Held: No. Change of ownership in the registration certificate at a later date would not defer the passing of title in the vehicle delivered at the time of sale. Transferee owner is liable.

Reliance General Insurance co., Ltd., Vs Karnail kaur and others-High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Non registration of the motor vehicle the insurance company seeks pay and recover order against 19 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 the owner on the ground that, offending vehicle was not registered on the date of accident and insured was guilty of violating terms of the policy. On perusal of Section 149(2) A and B makes it evident that No defence is available to insurance company to avoid its liability to pay compensation in case the insured vehicle was not registered on the date of accident. Insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

National insurance co., Ltd., Vs P.C.Chacko and others High court of Kerala at Ernakulam 2012 ACJ 1065 Division Bench. In this case held that Section 163A creates new different distinct and absolute statutory liability tribunal or court need not to go beyond the four walls of the section while ascertaining liability under this section and only certain questions which will have to be considered.

Sangpari Vs F.Lalremruata and another Gauhati Aizawl bench. 2016 ACJ 416. Claim petition filed U/s 20 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 163A death of the deceased caused while riding the scooter, tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground there is no eye witness to the incident and no other vehicle involved in the accident. The testimony of the ASI upheld and High court come to conclusion that, tribunal is erred in dismissing the claim petition. 12 My findings on the above Issues are as under:

13. Issue No.1 and 2:-

14. So far as the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased Chethan is concerned, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.13 to 16-attested copy of marks card and on perusal of the contents of the same, it reiterates the relationship stated by the petitioner with the deceased. Since there is no contra evidence nor rival claim, for the 22 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 purpose of this petition, it can be held that petitioner is the mother of deceased Chethan. It has to be stated here that the fact that the petitioner has arrayed as mother of the deceased. The petitioner's husband by name Praveena still alive, but petitioner intentionally did not included him as a party. During investigation, IO had recorded his statement on 5-3-2018. The witnesses of inquest stated in their statement deceased father and mother doing coolie in Yedalli village, Shanivarasanthe hobli, Somavarapete Tq., So from this admission from petitioner's own document, it is confirmed that husband of the petitioner is still alive. The apprehension of the respondent No.1 is that, the father of the deceased or another son of petitioner No.1 may file another claim petition on the same cause of action before any other Tribunal. Therefore respondent No.1 counsel mainly stress that the husband of the petitioner and another son 23 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 of the petitioner debarred from filing claim petition before any other tribunal.

15. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 05-3- 2018 at about 9.30 a.m. when Chethan was riding the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-41-W-9218, near Vijapura colony, lift irrigation, Arkalgud Mallipatna road, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing reg.No.KA-57-F-2542 came from Arakalgud with high speed and Chethan lost control over his motor cycle and dashed against KSRTC bus right front side, as a result of which Chethan died.

16. The petitioner in order to substantiate her case examined herself as PW-1 and filed an affidavit in the form of examination in chief reiterating the averments of the petition that the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-57- F-2542 tried to avoid the accident and severed the vehicle to the left of road, but Chethan came from opposite direction and dashed the front portion of the bus, resulting grievous injury to the rider of the motor cycle. 24 MVC No.2810/2018

17. Apart from his oral evidence, PW.1 has produced the Certified Copy of FIR, Complaint, statements, Charge Sheet, Inquest Report, Sketch, PM Report, IMV Report, marks card and adhar Card as Ex.P.1 to P.18 respectively. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination it is elicited that, she was not with her husband at the time of the accident and that her husband got separated and married. She says that the motorcycle belongs to her son and that she cannot produce the license since the same was with her son. It is suggested to her that her son himself driven the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus and the accident was occurred due to his negligence and the same was denied. The witness denied that, her son went and dashed against the bus and as a result, he fell down and died.

18. In the cross-examination of PW-1 as above, though questions were put to her and answers are elicited accordingly, but, it has to be noted that she is not an eye-witness to the accident and therefore, her evidence cannot be given weightage so far as involvement of the bus in the accident, as spoken by PW-1 is concerned.

19. However, the petitioner has produced police documents in an attempt to establish the involvement of the above vehicle in the accident. Ex.P.1 is the FIR registered against the rider of the motor cycle i.e., deceased for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. Ex.P.7 is the Spot Sketch which shows the spot of the accident. Ex.P.10 is the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, which discloses the damage caused to both the vehicles in the accident. Ex.P.8 is the 8 Mahazar. Ex.P.11 is the Post Mortem Report, which says that the death of Chethan is on account of accidental 26 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 injuries. Ex.P.12 is the charge sheet filed by the Police, since the rider of the motorcycle died in the accident. The contents of these documents clearly and unimpeachably reveal that on 5-3-2018 at about 9.30 a.m. near Vijapura colony, Lift irrigation, Arkalgud- Mallipatna road, Arkalgud, Hassan, an accident occurred between motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.41-W- 9218 and bus bearing No.KA-57-F-2542 and when the rider of the motor cycle i.e. deceased fell down and died in the accident, the deceased Chethan having suffered grievous injuries, succumbed to the same at the spot. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner has successfully proved the occurrence of accident involving the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.41-W-9218 and an KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.57-F-2542 on the relevant date, time and place, in which Chethan having sustained grievous injuries, succumbed to the same. 27 MVC No.2810/2018

20. The Counsel for the respondent No.4, in his arguments vehemently contended that the deceased being the architect of the accident, case is registered against him. Further contended that accident caused due to negligence of deceased Chethan, after he having fallen on the road after coming in contact with the KSRTC bus and therefore, the case is not maintainable against the respondent No.3 and 4. This argument on the part of the respondent No.4 cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that, since this petition is filed under Section 163- A of the MV Act, the fact of negligence cannot be looked into and it is only the involvement of the vehicles in the accident, which is relevant to be examined and as discussed above, the petitioner by production of police records, has successfully established the same.

21. The respondent No.1 got examined its driver as RW-1 who has stated in his affidavit that immediately after the accident he filed a complaint to the 28 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 jurisdictional police the manner in which the accident took place. The mishap occurred solely due to negligence of the motor cycle rider. The deceased was driving the vehicle by using the headphones of his mobile and he was driving his vehicle without wearing a helmet. The driver of the motor cycle had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the front portion of the bus. RW-1 has produced Ex-R1-notarised copy of DL, Ex- R2-B extract, Ex-R3 and 4-6 photos with CD.

22. The respondent No.3 got examined its Manager as RW-1 who has stated in his affidavit that 3rd respondent has not received any premium to cover risk of the rider of the said motor cycle and this respondent is not liable to pay compensation, if any under the said policy. The petition is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties as the 3rd respondent are unnecessary parties to the proceedings. The deceased being a rider of the insured vehicle which allegedly involved in the accident, 29 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 he by no stretch of imagination, be called a third party qua the vehicle and as such not covered under the provisions of the MV Act and under the policy. The deceased was riding the insured motor cycle without possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The insured had knowingly entrusted the insured vehicle to the rider, who had no valid and effective driving licence. Therefore insured i.e., 2nd respondent had knowingly entrusted the insured vehicle to the rider, who had no valid and effective DL as on the date of alleged accident and exonerated the 3rd respondent form indemnifying the liability, if any under the alleged cause of action by violating the policy terms and conditions and law. That the policy of the insured vehicle stands in the name of Sri.K.S.Venkatesh S/o K.N.Shivanna, Karigowdanahally, Dombaranahally, Turuvekere, Tumkur, Karnataka-572102 as on the date of alleged accident and he is not party to the proceedings. 30 MVC No.2810/2018

SCCH-26 Therefore the petition is not maintainable against the insurer without impleading the insured. Hence the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. Hence prays to dismiss the petition against 3rd respondent. RW-1 produced Ex-R5- copy of the policy.

23. This tribunal relied upon a judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 1054 ( National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Seema Ramdas Telhande and others ), wherein it is held as under:

24. In this case also, though the respondent No.4 contends that the deceased is the architect of the accident and that the case is registered against the deceased, owing to the fact that the above petition is filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, which does not entail the petitioner to prove the negligence on the part of the deceased and it is suffice if the involvement of the vehicles in the accident is proved and in the case on hand, the facts of the case coupled with the principles laid-down in the above judgment show that the petitioner has successfully established her case. Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2 is answered in the affirmative. 32 MVC No.2810/2018

25. Issue No.3:- The petitioner has claimed a total compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- from the respondents on account of death of Chethan in the accident.

26. It is the case of petitioner that, she is the mother of the deceased Chethan and he was aged 21 years, student studying 2nd year Bcom.

27. In order to determine the compensation in a death case, the age, avocation and income of the deceased are the relevant factors for consideration.

28. As far as the age of the deceased Chethan is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that he was aged 21 years, to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Ex-P13 to 16 Marks Card of the deceased are produced.

29. In this regard, if we peruse the cross- examination of PW 1, she categorically admits that her son studying in Second B.Com,.

30. As stated above, this is a petition filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act. As per notification issued by Central Government dated 22-05-2018- SO 2022(e) in exercise of power conferred by sub section 3 of Section 163A of the MV Act 1988, the central government keeping in view the cost of living, hereby makes the following amendment to the II Schedule to the said Act. THE SECOND SCHEDULE (SEE SECTION 163A) Schedule for compensation for 3rd party fatal accidents/injury cases claims.

1 (a)-FATAL ACCIDENT-

compensation payable in case of death shall be Rs.5,00,000/-.

(b) -ACCIDENT RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY-

SCCH-26 Compensation payable shall be Rs.5,00,000/- x percentage disability as per Schedule I of the Employees Compensation act 1923.

Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than Rs.50,000/-.

© ACCIDENT RESULTING IN MINOR INJURY:-

In case of fatal accident compensation shall be Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 163A 1(A) and as per the notification and amendment to II Schedule 2 on and from the date of 35 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 first day of January 2019, the amount of compensation specified in the clauses a to c paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5% annually. In this case, accident occurred in the year 2018. From the date of accident, till pronouncement of judgment, three years completed or expired. So from above notification, in case of fatal accident, fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- petitioner is entitle and increasing to 5% to Rs.5,00,000/- annually (Rs.5,00,000/- x 5% for three years) Rs.75,000/-. Therefore petitioner is entitle for fixed compensation of Rs.5,75,000/-.

31. Regarding the liability to pay compensation amount is concerned, while answering issue No.1, it is held that the accident has occurred involving the motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-W-9218 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-2542. The sole question remains before this tribunal who is responsible for pay the compensation U/s 163 A of IMV Act ?.

32. It is true from the facts that, due to own negligence of the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-41-W- 9218 the present accident occurred and IO filed an abated charge sheet against deceased. The present claim petition filed U/s 163 A of IMV Act , there is no need for claimants to plead or establish that the death in respect of which claim petition has been made due to any wrongful act or negligent or default of owner of the vehicle concerned. The petition filed by claimants was based on " no fault liability ". The deceased was not the owner of motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-41-W-9218. Section 163A of the Act has to be interpreted in keeping with the intention of the legislature and the social perspective it seeks to achieve. It is a provision, which is beneficial in nature and it has been enacted as a measure of social security. Section 163A of the Act commences with a " non-obstante " clause liable to pay the compensation is on owner of the motor cycle or the 37 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 authorized insurer. The word "owner" has been defined U/s 2(30) of IMV Act to mean ' a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase, agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement '.

33. It is settled principle of law that in an application U/s 163 A of IMV Act , the negligence is not required to be established and proved and it is enough to prove/establish that the deceased as died in a vehicular accident and while driving vehicle. Further it is settled principle of law by Hon'ble Apex court in the case between Ramkhiladi and another Vs The Untied Insurance company and others civil Appeal No.9363/19 dt.7-1-2020 observed that " Claim petition presented by a Section 163A of IMV act is not maintainable 38 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself ".

34. In the present case on hand, deceased was driving motor cycle which was RC stood in the name of respondent No.2, respondent No.3 is the insurer of said motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-B-9218. But policy stood in the name of respondent No.4. But claimants stated and contended that the motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-W- 9218 belongs to deceased. But no documents produced. As per Ex-R2 the said motor cycle stood in the name of Srinivasa S/o Puttaswamy i.e., Ex-R2 with effect from 9-11-2012 and as per Ex-R5 one Venkatesh S/o A.S.Shivanna is the insurance policy holder which is valid from 21-11-2017 to 20-11-2018. Deceased can be treated as borrower, he borrowed motor cycle from real owner of the motor cycle and which was being used by deceased in public road. The deceased 39 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 was stepped in to the shoes of the owner of vehicle. It is also settled principle of law that the claim petition U/s 163 A of Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. Deceased being borrower of motor cycle bearing No.KA- 41-W-9218, he cannot maintain a claim U/s 163 A of the Act against owner and insurer of vehicle. The deceased cannot be said to be thirty party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing No.KA-41-W-9218. Therefore cannot be any dispute, but liability of the insurance company would be as per terms and conditions of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-57-F-2542 being a third party to the said vehicle. The claim U/s 163 A of the Act , mere use of the vehicle is enough, the respondent No.1 insurer/owner liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

35. So far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in the case reported 40 MVC No.2810/2018 SCCH-26 in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) ( Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy ), the Supreme Court has held that the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the present day cost of living and thereby awarded, interest on the compensation amount at 9% p.a. I have no reason to deviate from the said view of the Apex Court. Accordingly, interest on compensation amount is awarded at 9% p.a.

36. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to pay the compensation to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 being the RC Owner of the bus bearing No.KA-57-F- 2542 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is in partly affirmative.

37. Issue No.3: On the basis of discussions made on Issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:

::A N N E X U R E::