Personal accident coverage under an insurance policy can extend to claimants even if the deceased was the tortfeasor, provided the policy conditions are satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.1006 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the death of one Wilson due to the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 17.11.2003. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by him was hit against a telephone post, thereby sustaining injuries. Even though he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.

2. The said vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent, who is none other than the wife of the deceased. The claim petition was submitted by the appellants in such circumstances, who were the mother and children of the deceased. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting the coverage of the policy over the said vehicle. However, they contended that the appellants are not entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the same was not maintainable. It was contended that since the deceased himself was the tortfeasor, the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation.

3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A9 from the side of the appellants. The copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ext.B1 from the side of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the light of the observations in Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd [2009 ACJ 2020]. This appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the order of dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Heard Sri.A.R.Nimod, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.K.S.Santhi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company.

5. The only question that arises here is whether the claim petition submitted under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act at the instance of the legal heirs of the deceased who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time can be entertained. It is an admitted case that it was a self-accident where no other vehicle was involved. The accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased hit a telephone post. It is also an admitted fact that the motorcycle was owned by the 1st respondent, who is none other than the wife of the deceased. It was rightly observed by the Tribunal, in the light of Ningamma (supra), that the claim petition cannot be entertained as it was categorically held therein that when a person is driving a vehicle with the consent of the owner, he steps into the shoes of the said owner and therefore, no compensation can be claimed at his instance. This is because, in the event of entertaining a claim petition, he would be asking compensation from himself. However, in Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company & Another [(2020) 2 SCC 550], the Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to Ningamma (supra), observed that if the policy contains personal accident coverage for the owner and driver, the benefits of the same can be extended to the claimants in a petition under Section 163A, even though the application is not maintainable. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors. [(2009) ACC 297 (SC)] also the very same view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the insurer raised a contention that the personal accident coverage contemplated under the terms and conditions of the policy cannot be extended to any person other than the registered owner of the said vehicle. The learned senior counsel also explained the circumstances under which the order imposing the liability of the insurance company on the personal accident coverage happened to be passed in Ramkhiladi (supra). According to him, in paragraph 4.3 of the Ramkhiladi (supra), a submission was made by the learned Senior counsel for the insu