Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4000
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Appellant
Versus
VASANTHA C. – Respondent
MACA 1563 2004
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.A.S.SABU, SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V., SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR
An unlicensed driver cannot claim compensation under Section 163A; claims above Rs. 40,000 are not maintainable.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163A - The court found that the claim under Section 163A was not maintainable as the deceased was not validly licensed and the income exceeded statutory limits, impacting liability.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurer, challenged a Tribunal's compensation award for a fatal motor accident involving a motorcyclist who lacked a valid driving license and claimed excessive income beyond the statutory limit.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the claim was not maintainable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act due to the lack of a valid driving license and the deceased's income exceeding the prescribed limit.
Issues: Whether the claim under Section 163A was maintainable given the deceased's lack of a valid driving license and his income exceeding the statutory threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: Claims under Section 163A are not maintainable if the deceased was unlicensed at the time of the accident and if the annual income exceeds the stipulated limit of Rs. 40,000.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's award and dismissing the claim under O.P.(M.V.) No. 328 of 2001.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant is the second respondent in O.P. (MV) No.358 of
2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, an application field by respondents 1 to 4 herein under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation on account of death of one Sukumaran Nadar (husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 4) in a motor accident occurred on 24.10.2000. On the date of the accident, the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing registration KL-01/M-2068 owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant herein. When the motorcycle reached the spot of accident, it hit on a dog which crossed the road. The deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries, who later succumbed to the injuries, on the date of the accident itself. Respondents 1 to 4 filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Act, claiming a total compensation of Rs.7,55,500/-.
2. The 5th respondent herein, the owner of the motorcycle, filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased and that the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurer at the time of the accident.
3. The appellant insurer filed written statement denying occupation and monthly income of the deceased and also the nature of injuries shown in the claim petition. They also contended that amount of compensation claimed is extensive. Later the appellant insurer filed an additional written statement contending that, at the time of the accident the deceased was riding the motor cycle without holding a valid and effective driving licence. In order to prove the above contention, I.A. No. 5007 of 2013 was filed, for directing the first respondent herein to produce the driving licence, if any, of the deceased. Copy of the driving licence was produced, which was marked as Ext. A9, which would show that the driving licence was valid for the period from 04.04.1986 to 03.04.1991, which was renewed from 23.05.1993 to 24.05.1998.
4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal found that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in an accident which occurred on 24.10.2000 and the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act is maintainable. Regarding the monthly income of the deceased, though the respondents 1 to 4 contended that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.5000/-, after considering the materials on record, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.2000/-. Following structured formula prescribed under the second schedule of the Act, the Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.1,28,000/- and, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,37,500/- under different heads. The appellant being the insurer of the vehicle in question was directed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal together with interest.
5. It is aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant insurer is before this Court in this appeal.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant insurer would contend that when the income limit prescribed under the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is only Rs.40,000/- per annum., the Tribunal went wrong in entertaining the claim petition filed by respondents 1 to 4, claiming a monthly income of Rs.5000/-. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that, in respect of a self invited accident, a claim under section 163A of the Act is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sinitha [ 2011 (4) KLT 821 ]. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that, at the time of the accident the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence and as such the appellant insurer cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to respondents 1 to 4.
7. We heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appel
