Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20451
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.BABU, J
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. – Appellant
Versus
JAYASREE – Respondent
MACA/2100/2014
Sri.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD, Sri.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), Sri.P.JACOB MATHEW, Sri.K.P.BALAGOPAL, Sri.M.A.GEORGE
Only the insurer of the lorry is liable for compensation as the motorbike policy was likely 'Act only', making shared liability incorrect.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Sec. 163A - The court clarified the liability of insurers when a motorbike and lorry were involved in an accident, emphasizing the relevance of insurance policy types and decision ruling out shared liability.
Fact of the Case:
A motorbike collided with a lorry, resulting in the deaths of the bike's rider and pillion. The claim for compensation was made under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against both insurers, leading to a tribunal award.
Finding of the Court:
The tribunal incorrectly decided that both insurers should share liability. The insurer of the bike had no liability as it was likely only an 'Act only' policy, meaning the lorry's insurer was solely responsible for the compensation.
Issues: Whether both insurers were liable for compensation and the correct interpretation of the insurance policy types in the context of Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that under Sec. 163A, negligence was irrelevant, but the type of insurance policy was crucial in determining liability; thus, the motorbike's insurer bore no liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the tribunal's order, placing sole liability on the lorry's insurer for the awarded compensation.
JUDGMENT
1.A motorbike and a lorry collided. It was on
3.11.2009. Both the rider and the pillion rider of the bike died in the accident. Respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal moved an application for compensation on account of the death of the rider of the motorbike. The motion was under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act . The lorry was insured with the 6th respondent in the appeal. The appellant was the insurer of the bike.
2.Heard Sri.P.V.Jyothi Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.K.P.Balagopal, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned senior counsel for the 6th respondent.
3.The tribunal awarded Rs 4,51,100/- as MACA.2100/14 compensation. As the claim was under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act, on account of whose negligence was caused the accident was irrelevant. The tribunal found that as two vehicles were involved in the accident, both the insurers should shoulder the liability equally. That was indeed a wrong approach without considering certain relevant matters.
4.Nobody had a case before the tribunal that the policy of insurance in respect of the motorbike was a comprehensive policy. It should therefore be taken that it was only an 'Act only' policy. Therefore the insurer of the motor cycle had no liability to compensate the heirs of the rider and the pillion rider. As negligence is not at all relevant, the entire liability should be shouldered by the 6th respondent in the appeal with which was insured the lorry. The appeal is to be allowed to that extent.
5.The appeal is allowed to the extent of setting MACA.2100/14 aside the order of the tribunal directing the appellant to pay 50% of the compensation. The entire compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest and costs shall be deposited by the 6th respondent in the appeal. The 6th respondent shall deposit before the tribunal the entire compensation, less any amount already deposited, with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
