The burden of proof regarding policy breaches rests on the insurer who must provide evidence to exonerate itself from liability. Failure to do so may result in the enforcement of the Tribunal's award.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1555/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 30/01/2020. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners and the first respondent respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the parents and brother of deceased Raneesh. According to the claim petitioners, on 19/02/2006 at 05:30 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-8-Y-5439 through Cherkkara – Vatanappally road and when he reached the place by name, Kalany Palam, the motorcycle hit an electric post as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed.

3. The first respondent-owner did not file written statement.

4. The second respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying the liability. It was contended that the deceased was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident. The first respondent has violated the policy condition. The averments in the petition regarding injuries, hospitalisation, age and income of the deceased were disputed. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the second respondent.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found that the respondents 1 and 2 are severally liable to pay an amount of ₹2,28,900/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. The second respondent has been given the liberty to recover the amount from the first respondent/owner. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurer that the Tribunal committed a gross error in awarding compensation in an application under Section 163A of the Act as the accident was caused solely due to the rashness and negligence of the deceased himself, who was riding the motorcycle owned by the first respondent. In support he relies on the dictums in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company, (2020) 2 SCC 550 as well as Sasikala v. Aji Kumar, 2019 (4) KLT 117

10. Admittedly, the deceased was riding a motorcycle owned by the first respondent. Nobody has a case that the deceased was an employee or worker of the first respondent/owner. That being the position, the deceased stepped into the shoes of the first respondent/owner and in such circumstances, as per the aforesaid dictums, the claim petitioners are not entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Act.

11. It was further submitted that the amount under the personal accident cover (PAC) can also not be awarded as the terms of the contract or the policy condition was violated as the deceased had no valid driving license at the time of the incident. Therefore, the insurer is liable to be completely exon