Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36048
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J
SMITHA T.T. – Appellant
Versus
SREEROOP.V – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 111 OF 2023|O.P. (M.V) No. 871 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, ARSHID.M.S., ARUNKUMAR P.(K/000589/2018)
For the Respondents: Not specified
The liability for compensation in uninsured vehicle accidents lies solely with the vehicle owner, not the R.T.O.
Headnote:The judgment considers the statutory obligations under section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case involved a fatal accident and a claim petition filed by the legal heirs for compensation. The Court found the liability for compensation lies solely with the vehicle owner, stating that the R.T.O. is not essential for claim resolution. The motion to implead the R.T.O. was dismissed as the primary liability rest on the owner to ensure vehicle insurance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for compensation after a fatal accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. liability lies with vehicle owner for uninsured vehicles. (Para 4) |
| 3. court upheld the tribunal's dismissal of the petition. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
1. This Original Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 Order in I.A. No. 01 of 2022 in O.P. (M.V) No. 871 of 2020, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara.
2. A Practicing Lawyer at Vatakara Bar Association met with an accident o22.01.2020 at around 7.30 P.M when the deceased was going to his house on a scooter from his office. As soon as the diseased reached near Nut Street Junction, Vatakara, an Enfield Bullet owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 2rd respondent rammed the scooter and thereafter, the deceased sustained serious head injury and he died on 05.02.2020.
3. The dependents or the legal heirs have filed claim petition in O.P.(M.V) No. 871 of 2022. At the period that the accident occurred, the vehicle was not insured and therefore, the owner and the driver of the vehicle are responsible for this accident.
4. The I.A. No. 01 of 2022 in O.P.(M.V) No. 871 of 2020 was filed to implead Regional Transport Officer, Vatakara as respondent No. 3 in the said claim petition. The ground on which the impleadment was sought is that, it was the duty of the R.T.O to see that the uninsured vehicle did not ply on the road and therefore, the R.T.O failed to discharge his statutory function. The learned Tribunal had rejected the said petition by Ext. P3 Order. It has been held under section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, the owner of the motor vehicle or the insurer shall be liable to pay compensation to the victim. The first liability is upon the owner of the vehicle. Since the owner has insurance policy, the vehicle insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The R.T.O or the District Collector is not necessary to settle the claim.
4. I find no reason for interfering with rejection order by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The primary responsibility is of the motor vehicle owner to get insured the motor vehicle. In case, if the motor vehicle owner fails to get the motor vehicle insured, the liability for payment of compensation would not fall upon to the registration authority. It means that the responsibility is of the owner alone or the driver or both to make payment of the compensation for the accident.
5. The present Original Petition challenging the said order is hereby dismissed.
