Claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act do not require proof of negligence and allow for remand for consideration of further evidence against other parties.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2025)

These appeals have been filed by the claimants and the

2nd respondent/insurance company in OP(MV) No.986 of 2017 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the compensation awarded and challenging the liability found by the tribunal, respectively. Since these appeals arise from the common award in O.P.(MV) No.986/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.P.(MV)

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

On 28.09.2015, at about 4.45 pm, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-65-C- 2707 along the Ramanattukara–Kozhikode bypass road, the motorcycle collided with a car bearing Registration No. KL- 11-AC-8388. As a result, the rider sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to those injuries. The legal heirs approached the tribunal under section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act , claiming a total compensation of ₹5,26,167/-.

3. The first and third respondent/ registered owner of the motorcycle in which the deceased was riding and the father of the deceased respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/insurer of the motorcycle filed a joint written statement admitting the insurance policy but denying the liability. It is further contended that the first respondent was not the owner and possessor of the motorcycle involved in the accident. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹2,44,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second respondent being the insurer. The claimants have approached this court, seeking enhancement, and the insurer has filed this appeal challenging their liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the deceased was the rider of the motorcycle and the claim was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the same motorcycle. Hence, being the rider of the motorcycle, he would step into the shoes of the owner and the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount awarded by the tribunal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that since the claim is under 163A of the Act, the claimants need not prove any negligence for claiming compensation. It is further submitted that two other vehicles were involved in the accident, but the insurer of the other vehicle was inadvertently omitted to be arrayed as respondent, when the claim petition was filed. It is also submitted that since the petition is filed under Section 163A of the Act, the claimants are entitled to recover the claim amount from the other vehicle involved in the accident, and therefore the claimants seek for remand of the matter back to the tribunal to adduce evidence to prove their contentions.

7. I have considered the contentions raised by both sides. Admittedly, the claim petition is filed under 163A of the Act. The insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation amount other than personal accident coverage, since the deceased, being the rider of the motorcycle, would step into the shoes of the owner as per the Apex Court decision in Ramkhiladi & another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others [2020 KHC 6008]. However, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted