Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35794
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
PALLIKUNHI – Respondent
MACA 1897 2011
Claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act are not admissible if the annual income of the deceased exceeds Rs.40,000, regardless of the insurance policy provisions.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 163A - The provision under Section 163A disallows compensation claims for a deceased whose annual income exceeds Rs.40,000/-, influencing the dismissal of the claim due to the deceased's earnings.
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition under Section 163A was filed by the deceased's parents due to a fatal accident. The deceased lost control of the van he was driving, leading to his death. The insurer contested the claim, asserting the deceased's income exceeded statutory limits, rendering the petition invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim was not maintainable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, given the deceased’s annual income exceeded Rs.40,000. The court also stated that the deceased, as the owner-driver, could not claim under the Act due to the insurance policy's provisions.
Issues: Is the claim petition maintainable under Section 163A given the deceased's income exceeds Rs.40,000, and does the insurance policy cover the personal accident claim for the owner-driver?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that claims under Section 163A are barred for those earning above Rs.40,000 annually, and since the deceased was the owner and not the insured, the insurer is not liable for personal accident coverage.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed and the claim petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
The second respondent-insurer in O.P (MV)No.411/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod, is the appellant. The petitioners and the first respondent in the claim petition are the respondents in the appeal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988(in short, 'Act'), claiming compensation on account of the death of 'Ibrahim Sherif'(deceased). It was their case that, on 01.02.2007, while the deceased was driving a Tempo Van bearing registration No.KL-06-A-435(LMV Goods Carriage) from Kasargod to Badiadka, the deceased lost control of the van and it hit against a tree. The deceased had suffered multiple injuries and lost his life before reaching the hospital. The petitioners were the parents of the deceased and were thus, his legal heirs. The first respondent was the insured and the second respondent was the insurer of the van. The deceased was a driver and was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/. Hence, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.2,00,000/- 3. The first respondent did not contest the proceeding and was set ex parte.
4. The second respondent-insurer had filed a written statement, admitting that the van had a valid insurance coverage in the name of the first respondent; but, he was not the owner of the van. As on the date of the accident, the deceased was the owner of the van. The insurance policy was not transferred to the name of the deceased. Therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. The second respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The petitioners had produced and marked Exts.A1 and A2 in evidence and the second respondent had produced and marked Exts.B1 and B2 in evidence.
6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award, allowed the claim petition, by holding that the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,74,500/-; but as they have limited their claim to Rs.2,00,000/-, permitted the petitioners to recover from the second respondent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and proportionate cost.
7. Aggrieved by the allowing of the claim petition, the second respondent-insurer is in appeal.
8. Heard; Sri. A.R. George the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent-insurer and Sri. K.C. Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/first respondent-insured.
9. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal whether the impugned award is sustainable in law?.
10. The case of the petitioners in the claim petition was that while their son – the deceased – was driving the van, he lost control of the van which hit against a tree and he was thrown out of the van. He had suffered multiple injuries and lost his life. They impleaded the first respondent as the insured and the second respondent as the insurer of the van. They had contended that the deceased was a driver and was earning a monthly income of Rs.4.500/-.
11. In view of the unambiguous admission on the part of the petitioners that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- i.e., an annual income of Rs.54,000/-, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition at the very threshold, in view of the statutory bar under Section 163A of the Act, read with the income cap under the Second Schedule of the Act, which permits claim petitions to be filed by the injured/legal heirs of the deceased victims who have an annual income not exceeding Rs.40,000/-. This position is well settled by this Court inNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. K.S. Lathika and Others [ 2011(3) KHC 393 ] and Sumathi Amma and Others v. Babu & Ors[ 2018 KHC 7529 ]. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition in li
