Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26514
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MASTER ARUN P.NAIR – Respondent
MACA/774/2006
SMT.DEEPA GEORGE, SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.A.S.SABU
Claimants cannot seek compensation under Sec.163A if they are legal representatives of the deceased who owned the vehicle involved in the accident.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Claim Petition - Motor Vehicles Act Sections 163A, 166, 147 - The Court ruled that claims under Sec.163A are not maintainable for family members of the deceased who were also users of the vehicle involved in the accident. Claimants must prove liability under Sec.166, ensuring the deceased was not at fault.
Fact of the Case:
A minor son filed a claim under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act following the death of his father in a motorcycle accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,12,500, which the insurance company appealed, contesting the maintainability of the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the claim under Sec.163A was not maintainable since the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and could not claim as a victim under this section. The insurance company was not liable for the claim made by a legal representative stepping into the shoes of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the claim under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable when the claimant is the legal representative of a deceased who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that claimants who step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle cannot claim compensation under Sec.163A, aligning with principles established in prior judgments.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal's award is set aside.
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1564/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara is the appellant in this appeal. The 1st respondent in this appeal filed the claim petition under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act . The 1st respondent is the minor son of the deceased Prabhakaran Nair, who died in a motor vehicle accident. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal).
2. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on
21.8.2001 at about 1.45 pm, the deceased Prabhakaran Nair was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-01-D-9190 from Parassala to Kirathoor Nithiravila from west to east and when he reached near Thirumancholai and while negotiating a lorry coming from the opposite direction, there was skidding of the scooter and Prabhakaran Nair sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, where he was declared dead. The minor son of the deceased Prabhakaran Nair filed a claim petition under Sec.163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act , in which the 1st respondent is the wife of the deceased and the mother of the petitioner.
3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the petitioner. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal passed an award allowing the applicant to realize Rs.2,12,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 26.12.2010, the date of application till realization. Aggrieved by the above award, this appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent.
4. Heard counsel for the 2nd respondent/appellant and counsel for the petitioner/claimant.
5. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court inNingamma v. United India Insurance Company Ltd [2009 KHC 5046] and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jiljet and anr. v. Stamphen George and others [2018 (5) KHC 206] , the claim petition under Sec. 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable.
6. The counsel for the petitioner/claimant conceded about the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ningamma’s case (supra) and Jiljet’s case (supra). But, the counsel submitted that as per Ext.A7, the policy issued by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, it is clear that additional premium is paid for the personal accident of the insured.
Therefore, the counsel submitted that the principle laid down in Ningamma’s case (supra), that the petitioner will step into the shoes of the owner, is applicable here, for getting the personal accident of insured. The sum and substance of the argument of the counsel is that since the petitioner was riding the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent, he will step into the shoe of the owner and therefore, in the light of the payment of additional premium, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation applicable to the owner.
7. The Apex Court in Ningamma’s case (supra) considered this point in detail. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :
"19. We have already extracted S.163A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under S.163A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of S.163A of the . Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under S.163-A of the
