No distinction can be made between the rider and pillion rider for availing benefit under Section 163-A of M.V. Act.

JUDGMENT

Suraj Govindaraj, J. - MFA No.24941/2011

1. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12th July 2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Gangavathi (for short "the Tribunal"), in MVC No213/2010.

2. The Tribunal by way the said judgment had awarded compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and also directed respondent No.2 Insurance Company to make payment of the said amount on a petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, 1988.

3. The Insurance Company is on appeal contending that the claimants in the said MVC was a driver of the vehicle and in terms of Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the driver, owner and insured of the vehicle cannot claim benefit under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, since the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the said owner for his own negligence. In this regard, Shri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 , rendered on 07.01.2020.

4. Per contra, Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel for the claimants would rely on the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Ors, (2020) 4 ALD 317 , rendered on 08.06.2020. More particularly paragraph No.13 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

"13. In this view of the matter, it is not relevant that the person insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have been riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in the death of the person driving the vehicle. The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in stating that it was necessary Under Section 163A to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which the death of the victim would take place.

5. Relying on the said paragraph, Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel would submit that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is now no longer necessary to draw a distinction between the rider of the vehicle or pillion rider of the vehicle. Both rider and pillion rider would have to be treated equally for availing benefit under Section 163-A of M.V. Act.

6. Heard Shri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the papers.

7. Having considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another (supra) rendered on 07.01.2020 and the decision in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari (supra), rendered on 08.06.2020, I am of the considered opinion that this Court will have to follow the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered on 08.06.2020 in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari (supra), as per which no distinction can be made between the rider and pillion rider and petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act can be maintained even by the rider.

8. In view of the same, the appeal in MFA No.24941/2011 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

MFA Crob. No.767/2013

9. The cross objection in MFA Crob. No.767/2013 has been filed by the claimants-cross-objectors seeking for enhancement of compensation from that awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit, on the following heads:

11. Shri N.L. Batakurki, learned counsel for the crossobjectors would submit that the cross-objectors have preferred the cross-objection seeking for enhancement of comp