Insurers are liable for compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act without establishing driver negligence in such cases.

JUDGMENT

[MACA Nos.2562/2014, 1815/2015]

Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 10.03.2014 in O.P.(MV) No.1168 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No. 2562 of 2014 is filed by the 4th respondent, insurer in the O.P challenging the liability to pay the amount awarded by the tribunal, whereas M.A.C.A.No.1815 of 2015 is filed by the claimants in the O.P., dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal against the 2^nd and 4^th respondents insurers.

Since the parties and the cause of action are the same, the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: According to the claimants, on 30.09.2007, while the deceased was driving a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AW 441 along Alappuzha- Ernakulam NH road, another mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-2/S 2932 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the mini lorry driven by the deceased. As a result of the accident, he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,16,267/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 3 are the owners of the mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-2/S 2932 and mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AW 441 respectively. The respondents 2 and 4 are the insurers of both vehicles respectively. The first respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and liability.

The second respondent also filed an additional written statement stating that the police records revealed that the alleged accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AW 441 which the deceased was driving. The 3^rd respondent contends that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving of the mini-lorry KL-2/S 2932, whose driver died in the accident and that the compensation claimed is excessive. It was also contended that the driver of the mini-lorry KL-7/AW 441 was not negligent and the vehicle was duly covered by a valid package policy, and its driver held a valid licence and badge at the relevant time of accident. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The 4^th respondent admits that the mini-lorry KL-7/AW 441 was insured but contends that the accident occurred due to the negligence of its driver, who was charge- sheeted. The vehicle was overloaded and the accident was not reported to the insurer nor were documents produced, amounting to breach of policy conditions. The 4^th respondent contends that the amended claim under Section 163A is not maintainable as the accident occurred due to the deceased’s own negligence and he is not a third party. The deceased was earning more than ₹40,000 as annual income under , and as a workman, the claim should have been filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hence, the 4^th respondent sought exoneration and dismissal of the claim petition. Before the tribunal, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A35 and Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,89,600/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. The 4^th respondent/United India Insurance Company was directed to deposit 75% of the award amount, and the 2^nd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company to deposit