Claimants are entitled to compensation without proving negligence under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially in a self-accident case.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants in O.P (MV) No.1607/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the dismissal of the award by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 18.06.2005, while the deceased Shameer was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration number KL-4/Q 2622 and when reached near Kuttivattom junction, a stray dog jumped across, and the motorcycle hit on the dog due to which it capsized upside down, causing serious injuries. On 21.06.2005, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/owner of the motorcycle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but contending that the deceased was the rider of the motorcycle and the accident arose out of the negligence of the deceased himself. It was also contended that the claim is not maintainable in law and that the policy does not cover the risk of the rider of the motorcycle. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claim petition is not maintainable as the deceased was solely at fault for the accident. Challenging this, the claimants have come up in appeal.

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

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was originally filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was later converted into one under Section 163A of the . The learned counsel further submitted that, when a claim petition is filed under of the Act, the appellant is not required to prove negligence.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle and that it was a self-

accident, without involvement of another vehicle and hence he is not entitled to get any compensation.

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides.

8. Admittedly, the claim petition was one under Section 163A of the Act. However, the finding of the Tribunal that no negligence was proved is of no consequence, as it is a settled position that when a claim petition is filed under of the Act, the tribunal, for awarding compensation, need not look into the aspect of negligence as held by the Larger Bench of this Court in Suresh v. Vasantha Shetty [ 2025 (5) KHC 520 ] following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another (2020 KHC 6008. Since the claim petition was filed under of the Act and no other vehicle was involved, it is a case of self- accident and, the deceased being the driver of the vehicle, following Ramkhiladi (supra), would step into the shoes of the owner. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act . However, on a perusal of the copy of the policy, it is seen that there was personal accident coverage for an amount of ₹1,00,000/- in case of death. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company agrees that there was personal accident coverage for an amount of ₹1,00,000/- in case of death. I find that following Ramkhiladi (supra) the appellants herein are also entitled to the amount of ₹1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover