The liability for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be imposed on the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer, and the liability can be shared by the owner and/or insurer of each vehicle involved in the accident.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of judgment dated 26.03.2010 of the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal), commonly passed on two separate claim petitions (MACT case Nos. 80/2009 & 81/209, previously 258 & 259/2000) that had been preferred on account of deaths of Sangita Arora and master Lakshya Arora. Since identical questions of law arise in the context of special provision contained in Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), against common background factual matrix, both have been taken up and heard together and are being decided through this common judgment.

2. On 19.01.1998, at about 8.30 a.m., Rajiv Arora, the registered owner of Maruti Car no. UP 14 E 6054 (the car) was driving it on a public road in the area of GT Road, near Hotel Dadupur, Karnal, Haryana, when it came to be involved in a collision with a truck bearing registration no. MP 063186 (the truck). In the car, besides the driver/owner, members of his family including wife Sangita Arora and minor son Lakshya Arora were also travelling. As a result of the collision all three of them suffered injuries and died in the consequence.

3. It appears that three accident claim petitions came to be preferred one of which concerned the death of Rajiv Arora. Though inquiries were made of the parties with regard to the status of the said case, the learned counsel for the appellant (National Insurance Company Ltd.) and for the fourth respondent (United India Insurance Company Ltd.) who only are participating in the hearing on these appeals expressed ignorance. Be that as it may, the two appeals at hand relate to the claim petitions which were preferred on account of deaths of Sangita Arora (38 years old) and Master Lakshya Arora (3 years old).

4. Before proceeding further, certain basic facts need to be noted. The claim petition concerning death of Sangita Arora (MACT case No. 80/2009) was preferred for and on behalf of Nidhi Arora (10 years old daughter), Kshitij Arora (8 years old son), Rakesh Arora (father-in-law) and Maya Rani (mother-in-law). The latter two claimants (father-in-law and mother-in-law), however, died before proceedings before the tribunal could conclude and, thus, their names were deleted from the array of parties. The claim case on account of death of master Lakshya Arora (MACT case No. 81/2009) was preferred simultaneously, again for and on behalf of Nidhi Arora and Kshitij Arora, they being the elder siblings of the deceased.

5. In both the claim cases, as initially presented on 15.04.2000, National Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as the solitary respondent with clarificatory remarks to the effect that Rajiv Arora, the driver (also the registered owner and insured in respect of the vehicle) had died, the insurance company having admittedly issued an insurance policy covering third party risk in respect of the car for the period in question in his name. In the original pleadings, it was merely stated that the car had met with an accident resulting in death of six persons which would include three above mentioned members of the same family. Both the petitions (with which one is concerned in these appeals) invoked the special provision contained in Section 163-A of the MV Act praying for award of compensation.

6. The two claim petitions were amended in May, 2004 whereby Raj Singh, (the owner of the truck) and M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer of the truck) were also impleaded as parties (second and third respondents in the respective cases) with pleadings added to the effect that the accident had occurred due to collision between the car and the truck and, therefore, all the three respondents (which would now include the insurer of the car, the owner of the truck and statedly the insurer of the truck respectively) were liable to pay the compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. Later, b