A sole-tortfeasor motorcycle rider cannot claim compensation under Section 163A.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the compensation awarded to Somesh in MVC No. 641/2020 was inadequate and required modification.

The court held

The Court allowed the insurer’s appeal in Somesh’s case and partly allowed Somesh’s appeal, reducing his compensation from ₹13,08,801 to ₹7,49,201.

It also directed

It dismissed the insurer’s appeal in Manjunath’s case and confirmed the Tribunal’s ₹83,400 award.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within six weeks, and the Tribunal was directed to draw a modified award.

01Facts

On 10 February 2020, Manjunath Basappa Buchadi was riding a motorcycle with Somesh Basappa Dhavale as pillion passenger when the motorcycle went off the road; both sustained injuries.

pp. 4–5

Police investigated and filed a charge sheet against Manjunath.

pp. 4–5 · p. 13

Somesh claimed compensation in MVC No. 641/2020, and Manjunath, the rider, claimed compensation in MVC No. 642/2020. The Tribunal awarded Somesh ₹13,08,801 and Manjunath ₹83,400, holding the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

pp. 7–9

The insurer appealed both awards; Somesh separately appealed for enhancement.

pp. 8–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the compensation awarded to Somesh in MVC No. 641/2020 was inadequate and required modification.

p. 11 · ¶ 19(i)

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to Manjunath, the motorcycle’s rider, in MVC No. 642/2020.

p. 11 · ¶ 19(ii)

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in addressing the rider’s claim.

Relying on Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jhuma Saha, (2007) 9 SCC 263, it stated that a person who steps into the shoes of the vehicle’s owner cannot claim against that owner and the vehicle’s insurer as a third party.

p. 21 · ¶ 45

For Somesh’s future-loss calculation, the Court applied the multiplier of 16 for a person aged 35, citing Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298.

p. 17 · ¶ 32

Where actual income was not proved, it used the Karnataka Legal Services Authority’s 2020 guidelines to assess monthly income at ₹13,750.

p. 17 · ¶ 30–31

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 163

04Reasoning

Somesh’s claimed monthly income of ₹80,000 was not supported by reliable records; the Court found the evidence about his weaving business and the single receipt insufficient. It therefore rejected both the claimed income and the Tribunal’s unsupported assessment of ₹30,000, substituting the guideline income of ₹13,750.

pp. 14–17 · ¶ 25–31

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of 18% whole-body disability and applied the multiplier of 16, producing ₹4,75,200 for future income loss.

p. 18 · ¶ 33–34

It adjusted other heads and fixed Somesh’s total compensation at ₹7,49,201.

pp. 18–20 · ¶ 35–41

As to Manjunath, the Court reasoned that he was the rider, the accident involved only one vehicle, and he was the sole tortfeasor; on that basis, it concluded that he could not maintain a Section 163A claim against the owner and insurer.

pp. 20–22 · ¶ 43–46

The judgment is internally inconsistent on this issue: although it states that Manjunath’s claim was not maintainable, it also says the Tribunal’s award was liable to be satisfied and dismisses the insurer’s appeal against that award.

pp. 22–23 · ¶ 46–48