A tortfeasor cannot claim compensation for their own death, but passengers in the vehicle are considered third parties and entitled to compensation under the insurance policy.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal is directed against an award passed by Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (for short ‘the Tribunal’)on 23.8.2011 in O.P.(M.V) No.1714/2010. The appellant is the 4 th respondent in the Original Petition on hand.

2. The appellant is none other than the insurer of a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. KL-11-Y-7544, which is involved in the motor accident occurred on 02.01.2008, in which one Mr.Rajamani and Mrs.Lathika sustained fatal injuries and died consequently. Mr.Rajamany was the owner-cum driver of the car at the relevant time of the accident. The award with reference to the Original Petition under challenge is relating to O.P.(M.V) No.1714 2010. It was tried before the Tribunal along with O.P.(M.V) No.1715/2010 and a common award was passed.

3. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KL-11-Y-7544, who also died in the motor accident. The Tribunal found that the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.1714/2010 who are none other than the children of Mr.Rajamani and Mrs.Lathika who died in the motor accident are entitled to get compensation and arrived at a sum of Rs.14,27,698/- as compensation and directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the same with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 20.11.2010, the date on which the original petition was filed, till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the quantum stands awarded as compensation and fixation of liability to indemnify the insured, the 4 th respondent/insurer has approached this Court in the appeal on hand.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the petitioners in O.P.(M.V) No.1714/2010, being the children of deceased Rajamany who was found as tortfeasor in the motor accident, are not entitled to get compensation. According to the learned counsel, a tortfeasor cannot at the very same time be a claimant of compensation. According to him, Mrs.Lathika cannot be treated as a third party since on the death of Mr.Rajamani, the registered owner-cum-insured of the Jeep involved in the motor accident, she would step into the shoes of the registered owner/insured of the vehicle. Her children are not entitled to claim compensation for her death, since with the death of Mr.Rajamani in the motor accident, she would step into the shoes to be the insured of the offending vehicle.

5. The learned counsel has relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajani Devi [2008 (4) KLT 145 (SC)] to rest his contention that the petitioners in O.P.(M.V) No.1714/2010 are not entitled to get compensation for the death of Mrs.Lathika in view of the likelihood of her change of status as the insured of the vehicle on the death of her husband who was the original insured.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended on the contrary that the policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle is a comprehensive one and the risk of third parties is covered under it. According to him, Mrs.Lathika was a passenger in the offending vehicle which happened to be driven by Mr.Rajamani who was also insured of the vehicle. Mr.Rajamani was the tortfeasor. Mrs.Lathika when travelled in the vehicle and when premium has been collected to cover her risk in the motor accident, she will only be a third party. According to the learned counsel,every person who are victims of a motor accident, apart from the insured of the vehicle will come within the purview of a ‘third party’.

Therefore, the petitioners in O.P.(M.V) No.1714/2010 being the children of Mrs.Lathika who was the wife of Mr.Rajamani are entitled to get compensation and the Tribunal has correctly found so and awarded compensation.

7. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent is only a formal party in the appeal on hand, as liability has not been fastened on them by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

8. The claim petition in the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant was one filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for shor