JUDGMENT :

The insurance company is the appellant in this appeal. It is aggrieved by the impugned judgement and decree dated 16.2.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruttani in MCOP No. 155 of 2013.

2. By the impugned judgement and decree, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- as compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the claimants who are respondent No. 1-5 herein.

3. The impugned judgement and decree passed by the tribunal is sought to be assailed by the appellant insurance company purely on the ground that section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 applies only to third party to and not to the wrong doer/Tortfeasor. It is submitted that the claimants have not discharged the burden of proof to fasten the liability on the appellant insurance company. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted one third towards personal expenses of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company drew attention of this court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi Vs United Insurance Co Ltd. [2020] 2 SCC 550 and submits that the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed.

5. Defending the impugned judgement and learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Insurance Company Versus Sunil Kumar [2019] 12 SCC 398. Learned counsel for the respondent claimants submits that the impugned judgement and decree are well reasoned and requires no interference.

6. I have consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also perused the impugned judgment and decree.

7. In Ramkhiladi Vs United Insurance Co Ltd. referred to supra, the claim petition was preferred only against the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 and its insurance company. Neither the driver nor the owner or (of) the insurance company of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223 which was responsible for the accident were made party in the claim petition.

8. It is to be noticed that the language in section 163-A starts with a Non Obstante clause. Sub-clause (2) merely declares that in any claim for compensation under sub- clause (1) to section 163-A, a claimant is not required to prove or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act on neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

9. In fact, section 166 of the Act also does not contemplate a requirement that the rider/driver of the insured vehicle should be a third-party for claiming compensation in case of injury or in the case of death due to the accident. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 merely cast a statutory obligation on the insurer. The tested and accepted interpretation that has been arrived by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the injured or the person who dies in the motor accident must be a third-party for the insurer to be made liable.

10. If the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi Vs. United Insurance Co Ltd case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is applied, the present has to be allowed.

11. On the other hand, if the ratio of the Supreme Court in United Insurance Company Limited Versus Sunil referred to supra and cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is applied to the facts of the case, the appeal has to be dismissed. However, the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to confined to the facts of the case therein. It cannot be applied.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had to deal with the issue as in present appeal as well i.e. “whether the insurance company of the vehicle driven by the deceased himself would be liable to pay the compensation under Section 163A of the Act?

13. In para 5.3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the issue as follows:-

It is true that, in a claim under Sect