Liability under MV Act sections clearly rests on the vehicle owner or insurer, not the driver.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is preferred by the additional 4th respondent in OP(MV) No. 416/2012, which was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) before the MACT, Pathanamthitta. The appeal is grounded on the statutory provision of , which specifies that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in cases of death or permanent disablement arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows; The original petition was filed by the wife, minor daughter, mother, and father of the late Lijo Chacko, who was employed as a driver. At the time of the incident, the deceased was 24 years old and earned a monthly income of Rs. 3,300/-. On 24.09.2011, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-62-961 along the Pathanamthitta–Mannarakulanji public road, he was knocked down by a scooter bearing registration No. KL-2N-6467, driven by the additional 4^th respondent, near Mylapra Junction. He was immediately shifted to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries on 27.09.2011. Consequently, his legal heirs (the petitioners) sustained significant pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses and filed a claim for Rs.25,00,250/-.

3. At the time the original petition was filed, there were only two respondents: the registered owner and the insurer of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-62-961. The registered owner was set ex parte. The insurer contested the case by filing a written statement; while admitting to a valid insurance policy, they contended that there were breaches of the policy conditions. Specifically, the insurer argued that the RC owner failed to report the accident or provide the vehicle's documents for verification, thereby seeking to be exonerated from liability.

4. Furthermore, the insurer contended that the accident was caused by the deceased's own inexperience in riding a two-wheeler, which contributed to the occurrence of the incident. The insurer maintained that the burden of proof lay with the claimants to establish the age, income, and profession of the deceased, and characterised the compensation claimed as both excessive and legally inadmissible.

5. Based on the issues framed, the Tribunal initially answered the claims using the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A11. On 12.10.2017, the Tribunal passed an award directing the insurer to compensate the claimants. Aggrieved by this decision, the insurer preferred an appeal (MACA No. 2872 of 2018). By a judgment dated 30.03.2023, this Court allowed the appeal, holding that the original 1^st and 2^nd respondents (the RC owner and insurer) were misjoinder parties. The Court observed that no separate award could be passed against them since the deceased, as the rider, had effectively stepped into the shoes of the insured-registered owner.

6. Consequently, as per the directions of this Court, the original award was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The original 1^st and 2^nd respondents were deleted from the party array, and the additional 3^rd and 4^th respondents were impleaded in their stead to facilitate a proper adjudication of the claim.

7. Despite being served with notice, the additional 3^rd and 4^th respondents failed to appear and were consequently set ex parte by the Tribunal. The Tribunal addressed the primary issue of the cause of death by relying on the Ext.A9 autopsy report, finding that Lijo Chacko died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.

8. Following due deliberation and a review of the provisions under the Workmen’s Compensa