The liability under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is distinct from the liability under section 147 of the Act, and the insurer is liable to pay compensation under section 163-A notwithstanding the provisions of section 147. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 covers cases where negligence is on the part of the victim, and the provisions of section 163-A override other provisions of the Act.

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act or the Act of 1988 for short hereinafter) has been preferred by the insurer of a motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ19 7-M 0131 being aggrieved of the award dated 20. 3. 2006 made by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4], jodhpur in Claim Case No. 281 of 2005.

( 2 ) BY the award impugned, the Tribunal has allowed the claim application under section 163-A of the Act made by the wife, minor child and mother of the vehicular accident victim Praveen Solanki (about 33 years); and has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,36,200 while assessing pecuniary loss at Rs. 4,08,000 and allowing treatment expenditure at Rs. 1,200 and the other components of general damages including mental agony, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs. 27,000. Insurer essentially seeks to question the very competence of the claim application for the reason that the victim Praveen Solanki himself was the driver of the insured vehicle, i. e. , the motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ 19 7-M 0131 ; and according to the appellant, liability in relation to the said victim is not covered under the act only policy for the statutory requirements of compulsory coverage of the risk of persons or classes of persons does not encompass the risk of the driver of such vehicle.

( 3 ) THE background facts are that on 26. 6. 2004 the respondents-claimants made claim application under section 163-A of the Act of 1988, with the submissions that on 22. 1. 2004 at about 7. 20 p. m. , the victim praveen Solanki, while proceeding on the said motor cycle bearing No. RJ19 7-M 0131 from Jodhpur towards Nagaur, was hit from behind by a jeep on main Mandore road in front of RAC Gate No. 2; consequently he collided with an oncoming motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ 19 12-M 2531; and due to such collision the riders of the two motor cycles sustained injuries; and Praveen Solanki succumbed to the injuries next day while undergoing treatment. As legal heirs and dependants of the deceased Praveen Solanki, the claimants asserted their entitlement to claim compensation in terms of section 163-A read with Second Schedule to the Act of 1988 from registered owner of the motor cycle No. RJ 19 7-M 0131, non-applicant no. 1 and its insurer, the non-applicant no. 2.

( 4 ) THE claimants sought compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,69,166 with the averments that the deceased Praveen Solanki was about 33 years of age and was earning rs. 51,500 per annum while being engaged in marketing of building stones. Claimants averred that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 51,500 but as the claim was being made under section 163-A of the Act, they were taking the income of deceased at Rs. 40,000 and giving up the remaining Rs. 11,500; that with application of multiplier of 17, the amount would come to Rs. 6,40,000 (sic); and deducting one-third wherefrom towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, the remainder would come to Rs. 4,26,667. The claimants have also claimed Rs. 20,000 for medical expenses, Rs. 20,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs. 50,000 towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 50,000 for the claimant no. 1 towards the loss of consortium and rs. 2,500 towards loss to estate. In para 27 (c) of the claim application, it was pointed out that deceased was the son of the owner of the vehicle (non-applicant No. 1 ).

( 5 ) THE non-applicant No. 1 submitted a reply generally admitting the claim averments; but maintained that the accident was not caused by any mistake or negligence on his part; and that the vehicle was insured with the non-applicant No. 2 and the entire liability was that of the said insurer. The non-applicant No. 2, insurer, on the other hand submitted a reply stating denial of the claim averments and with the objections and contentions that the relevant documents regarding the inciden