Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, an insurer cannot evade liability based on contributory negligence when involved in a claim regarding death or injuries.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 5^th respondent/insurance company in O.P (MV) No.742 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, challenging the liability to pay the award amount. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”), The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the claimants 1 to 6 and respondents 7 to 10 herein are the respondents 1 to

4 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 31.05.2007, at about 9.00 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-7/AN-81, on reaching near Cherukunnam Kavala, the motorcycle dashed at the rear side of a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. KL-40/3348, which was parked on the left side of the road. The deceased sustained grievous injuries, and later succumbed to the said injuries. The claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,56,900/-.

3. Respondents 1 to 3, were the driver, owner and the insurer of the tipper lorry and respondents 4 and 5 were the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle, respectively. Before the tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The third respondent, insurer of the lorry, filed a written statement admitting the insurance of the tipper lorry but disputing that the amount claimed is excessive. The fourth respondent – owner of the motorcycle filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and the amount claimed is excessive and that the said respondent is an unnecessary party. The fifth respondent- the insurer of the motorcycle also filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage but disputing the amount claimed and denying the liability. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11, were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹4,84,700/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents 3 and 5 were directed to deposit half of the award amount each. Challenging the liability to pay the award amount, the 5^th respondent insurer has come up with this appeal.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurer of the motorcycle, learned Standing Counsel for the ninth respondent/insurer of the tipper lorry and the learned counsel for the tenth respondent.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the tribunal found contributory negligence at the ratio of 50: 50 on the part of the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the tipper lorry. The appellant herein is the insurer of the motorcycle. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the claim was filed under Section 163 A of the Act and that since the deceased was a rider of the motorcycle, the insurer of the motorcycle is not liable to pay any compensation under the Act.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurer of the tipper lorry, on the other hand, submitted that the rider of the motorcycle came and hit at the back side of the tipper lorry, which was parked on the rear side of the road. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants also submitted that the claim petition was filed against the insurer of the tipper lorry.

8. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act. The law is settled by the larger bench decision of this court inSuresh v. Vasantha Shetty [2025 (5) KHC 520] , that negligence need not be proved if the claim petit