Basant, J.

1. When plurality of vehicles are involved in an accident does the victim/claimant have the unfettered option/right to claim compensation under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against either or both the owners/insurers of the vehicles? Does the dictum in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Madhavan (2011 (3) KLT 452) require reconsideration?

2. These are the questions of law of relevance that arise for consideration now.

3. A brief reference to crucial facts would be apposite. There was an accident involving two vehicles. There was a collision between a Tata Sumo van (the insured vehicle hereafter) and a motor-cycle. In the motor-cycle, at the relevant time, there were three passengers-rider and two pillion riders. The accident took place on 5/8/1999. All the three passengers in the motor-cycle suffered injuries. One of the two pillion riders succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Both the injured persons and the legal heirs of the deceased pillion rider claimed compensation. They claimed compensation under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act. They arrayed the owner, driver and insurer of the insured vehicle and staked their claims against them. In the claim filed in respect of the two passengers (other than the rider of the motor-vehicles), the rider, owner and insurer of the motor-cycle were also arrayed as parties later. It is significant to state that no relief was claimed against the rider, owner or insurer of the motor-cycle.

4. The Tribunal under the impugned common award came to the conclusion that the claim under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act is legally sustainable. The Tribunal held that the insurer of the insured vehicle is liable to compensate all the claimants.

5. The insurer claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The short challenge raised by the appellant/insurance company is that when plurality of vehicles are involved in an accident, the owner/insurer of all such vehicles are liable to answer the claim under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act. The impugned common award inasmuch as it directs payment of compensation under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act by the insurer of one of the two vehicles involved in the accident is not legally sustainable. The owner/insurer of the motor-cycle must also be made liable to the extent of 50%. This is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company.

6. In M.A.C.A. Nos.2414, 2467 & 2470 of 2008, the common appellant is the insurance company. In M.A.C.A. No.1248/09, the appellant is the rider of the motor-cycle. The Tribunal had awarded compensation. The appellant/rider is aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. We shall initially consider the challenge raised on behalf of the insurance company. The question of law raised, we note, is already covered by a decision of the Division Bench in Madhavan (supra). Paragraph-6 of the said decision had considered the very same question in detail. We extract paragraph-6 of the said judgment below:

“6. The next question is whether in a claim under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver, owner and insurer (if any) of the other vehicle involved in the accident are necessary parties and whether the non impleadment of such driver, owner and insurer would adversely affect the claim under Section 163A against the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved. There is nothing in Section 163A to show that when two vehicles are involved, the claim must be staked against the owner and insurer of both vehicles. As in the case of Section 140, we must hold that option is of the claimants to claim against the owner/insurer of either or both the vehicles. A claim under Section 163A can lie only against the owner of the vehicle and the authorised insurer. It cannot lie against a driver (unless he is the owner also). The language of Section 163 A makes the position crystal clear. In this case evidently realizing the difficulty of recovering the amount from the owner of the other vehicle, which was no