Section 163A allows compensation to a third party without fault, but a paid driver is not a third party; he steps into the owner's shoes and cannot claim under 163A; insurer is not liable; remedy lies outside this provision.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. Whether a paid driver can be treated as a third party and whether compensation can be awarded for the injuries sustained to him, in a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is the question to be decided in this appeal.

2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.15 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

3. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 14.06.1997, while he was driving a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-14-4373 from Mangalore to Kasaragod, it hit against a bus bearing Reg.No.KL- GA/01/T/8879, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the jeep, appeared before the tribunal, admitting the accident and also the employment of the claimant as the driver of the jeep. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant, Exts.B1 & B2 on the side of the respondent insurer, and Ext.X1 as court exhibit. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claim petition is not maintainable as the claimant was solely at fault for the accident. Challenging this, the claimant has come up in appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

6. While this case was pending before the Division Bench of this Court, the appellant relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malathi c. Salian [(2003) 3 KLT 460] to contend that even if the appellant was negligent and caused the accident, he is still entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. Thereafter, during hearing, the Division Bench raised a doubt on the finding of the Full Bench in Malathi C. (supra) and referred the said issue to a Full Bench, expressing the view that the decision rendered by the Full Bench in Malathi C. (supra) requires reconsideration. Thereafter, the Full Bench of this Court considered the afore issue along with another issue raised in MACA No.2144 of 2006. However, the Full Bench further referred the issue raised in this appeal as well as in MACA No.2144 of 2006 for consideration by a Larger Bench. The questions referred for consideration by the Larger Bench were as follows:

1. Whether the injured persons/claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even if it is shown that the accident was on account of the negligence of the injured person/victim?

2. If the injured person/victim is the owner himself, whether the said owner is entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act?

7. The Larger Bench of this Court answered the reference by order dated 11.09.2024, finding that the issue as to whether the claimant is entitled for compensation even though the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the injured/victim, was decided by the apex court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & another [2017 KHC 5644] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & others [2008 KHC 4640], in favour of the appellant that though there is negligence, the insurer cannot raise