In claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise defenses of negligence against claimants, reflecting legislative intent.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. MACMA.No. 2640 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.811 of 2011.

2. MACMA.No.2641 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.812 of 2011.

3. MACMA.No.2695 of 2013 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the order dated 12.12.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur in MVOP.No.813 of 2011.

4. Smt.V.Durga, the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company in all these appeals and Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Rachamalla, the learned counsel for respondents/ claimants in all these appeals submitted their arguments.

5. In these appeals filed by the insurance company, the following questions have arisen for consideration:

1. In a claim preferred under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the injured/ legal representatives of the deceased, whether the insurance company is entitled to plead and prove that the accident was not out of rash or negligent act on part of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle but it was out of rash or negligent act of the injured or the deceased?

2. Whether triple riding of motorcycle by itself amounts to act of negligence or rashness and whether violation of law having occurred because of triple riding, the claim under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall fail?

6. The following aspects are to be noticed: -

On 23.05.2011, Sri M.Kishore was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 37 AQ 4950. He was carrying two pillion riders, namely Sri M.Rathaiah and Sri M.Sekhar Babu. It was about 05.00 pm, the motorcycle was travelling from Vennadeni Village to Rentapalla Village. There was a lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TU 3131 stationed on the road on the wrong side. The motorcycle went and dashed the lorry. In the said accident, the driver of the motorcycle, Sri M. Kishore died. One of the pillion riders Sri M.Rathaiah also died. The other pillion rider, Sri M.Sekhar Babu suffered serious injuries all over his body.

7. The incident was informed to police and Sattenapalli Town Police Station registered Cr.No.97 of 2011. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid finding fault with the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TU 3131.

8. The injured Sri M.Sekhar Babu filed MVOP.No.811 of 2011 under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. The legal representatives of driver of the motorcycle Sri M.Kishore filed MVOP.No.812 of 2011 praying compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The legal representatives of deceased pillion rider Sri M.Rathaiah filed MVOP.No.813 of 2011 under section 163A of the motorcycle praying compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

9. In all these three claim petitions, the owner of the lorry and the insurer of the lorry were made respondents. The owner did not choose to contest. The insurance company raised its contest.

10. Learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Guntur settled the issues and recorded oral and documentary evidence led by both sides. After hearing arguments and after considering the material on record, it arrived at the conclusion that the claim was under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claimants have no legal need to plead and prove negligence on part of the other vehicle. It negatived the contention of insurance company that the driver of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident.

11. In MVOP.No.811 of 2011, it gr