IMPORTANT POINTS
The burden to prove the relationship between the owner and user of the vehicle in cases of this nature has not been considered by the Apex Court in the said case, the observations made therein can be construed only as observations made on the facts of that case.

JUDGMENT :

As the issue arising for consideration in these appeals is common, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.2189 of 2010 are the legal representatives of one Bhuvanachandran Nair who died in a motor accident on 28.02.2004. Bhuvanachandran Nair was riding a motor cycle at the time of accident. It is alleged that while so, he lost control over the vehicle, fell on the road and sustained fatal injuries. As the accident occurred in the manner indicated above, the appellants instituted proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'), claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the motor cycle ridden by the deceased.

3. The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.3974 of 2017 are the legal representatives of one Juby Skaria who died in a motor accident on 9.9.2011. Juby Skaria was also riding a motor cycle at the time of accident. It is alleged that while so, he lost control over the vehicle, hit on the railing of a bridge and sustained fatal injuries. As in the earlier case, since the accident occurred in the manner indicated above, the appellants instituted proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 163A of the Act claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the motor cycle ridden by the deceased.

4. In both cases, the owners of the vehicles remained ex parte. The insurers of the vehicles, however, contested the proceedings, contending among others, that since the accidents occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased themselves, their legal representatives are not entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The proceedings which is the subject matter of M.A.C.A.No.3974 of 2017 was dismissed by the Tribunal accepting the said contention and the proceedings which is the subject matter of M.A.C.A.No.2189 of 2010 was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the annual income of the deceased being more than Rs.40,000/-, his legal representatives are not entitled to seek compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunals.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the insurers in the proceedings.

6. It is unnecessary to examine the correctness of the reasons on the basis of which the proceedings were dismissed by the Tribunal as, according to me, the proceedings instituted by the appellants are not maintainable on another ground. Admittedly, the deceased themselves were riding motor cycles involved in the accidents. The vehicles involved in the accidents were, however, not owned by the deceased persons. They were vehicles registered in the names of the first respondent in the respective cases. In Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Company Limited [(2009) 13 SCC 710], the Apex Court held that in such cases, the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and his/her legal representatives cannot claim compensation under Section 163A of the Act, for the liability to pay compensation under that provision is on the owner himself.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.3974 of 2017 has, however, contended that in cases of this nature, it is obligatory for the insurer to establish the relationship between the victim and the owner of the vehicle. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any material indicating the relationship, the Tribunal may not be justified in drawing an inference that the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel placed reliance on paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha [2011 (4) KLT 821], in support of the said contention. According to the learned counsel, the insurer in the case on hand has not established the relationship between the victim and the owner of the vehicle and as such, they are liable to pay