IMPORTANT POINT
Liability for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is restricted to the vehicle's owner and authorized insurer, with no requirement to establish negligence.

JUDGMENT

Dated : 12 ^th March, 2025

MACA 2171 of 2012 is filed by the additional respondents 3 and 4 in OP(MV). 1139/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Additional respondents 5 to 8 in the O.P. are the appellants in MACA 2294 of 2012. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The above OP was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the parents of the deceased Josemon who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 3.8.2003. According to the petitioners on 3.8.2003 at about 8.45 p.m., the deceased was riding pillion on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-7/AM 3063 ridden by one George Silvan @ George and when it reached near ATS Hotel, W.Island, the motor cycle fell into a trench taken in the road, which was also filled with water and he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 5.8.2003. The 1 ^st respondent is the owner of the motor cycle and the 2 ^nd respondent is its insurer.

3. In the O.P., originally there were only two respondents, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. Subsequently, additional respondents 3 to 8 were impleaded. Additional 3 ^rd respondent is the Managing partner and Additional 4 ^th respondent is the Supervisor of M/s. Manikkath Construction Company. The 5 ^th respondent is the Chief Engineer and respondents 6 to 8 are the Supervisors of M/s.Konkan Storage Pvt.Ltd. It is alleged that the additional respondents 3 to 8 were constructing a trench in the public road for laying pipe line, that during the construction of the said trench, all the additional respondents negligently and carelessly kept the trench opened during night, without providing any barricades or warning signal or other safety measures and that is why, the accident occurred.

4. The Tribunal as per the Award dated 19.4.2012 directed the 2 ^nd respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.3,43,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the petitioners and further permitted the 2 ^nd respondent to recover the same from respondents 3 to 8.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award to the extent it granted permission to the 2 ^nd respondent to recover the compensation from additional respondents 3 and 4, they have preferred MACA 2171 of 2012 and Additional respondents 5 to 8 in the OP preferred MACA 2294 of 2012.

6. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following :-

Whether in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation can be ordered against a respondent who is neither the owner of the motor vehicle nor the authorized insurer?

7. Heard Sri.Reji George, the learned counsel for the appellant in MACA 2171 of 2012, Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants in MACA 2294 of 2012/respondents 5 to 8 in the O.P. and Sri.A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 ^nd respondent/insurer.

8. In this case, the accident as well as the death of Josemon in the accident are not in dispute. While the deceased Josemon was riding pillion on a motor cycle, the motor cycle fell into a trench filled with water and thereby he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Additional respondents 3 to 8 are the officials of a construction Company which constructed a trench in the public road for laying pipe line. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred as the respondents 3 to 8 constructed the trench without providing necessary warnings/ barricades or signal.

9. The only question that arise for consideration in this case is whether anybody other than the owner and insurer of a motor vehicle can be mulcted with the liability to pay compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

10. Section 163A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows