BY AD vs SRI.BABY MATHEW

BY ADVS. SRI.BABY MATHEW SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.268/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 268 OF 2015 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.03.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.678 OF 2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD APPELLANT/PETITIONER: CHANDRIKA AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.KANDAMUTHAN, NATTUKAL, KOZHINJAPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1* 2 3* RAMA PRASAD (DELETED), S/O.THIRUVENKITAM, AGED 36 YEARS, SRI BHUVANESWARI AGRO (P)LTD, BHAGAVATHIPALAYAM ROAD, K. KADAVU, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT 600 001 (RC OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE REG NO.TN-41-P-6897 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD SUNDARAM BUILDINGS, 25, COIMBATORE ROAD, POLLACHI TAMIL NADU 600001 (INSURER OF MOTO CYCLE REG NO. TN 41- 6897) KRISHNAN (DELETED) S/O.PONNUMANI, MUTHALAMTHODE, VANDITHAVALAMB P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 534. (*R1 AND R3 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 8/6/2017 IN IA 3/17(IA 929/17)IN MACA NO.268 OF 2015) MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 4 BY ADV SRI. A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.1894/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 5 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 20th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.678 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad is the appellant in MACA No.268 of 2015 and the 2nd respondent in the above OP (MV) is the appellant in MACA No.1894 of 2013. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.05.2006. According to the petitioner, on 09.05.2006 at about 11.00 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-41 P/6897 from Gopalapuram to Kozhinjanpara public road, on seeing a dog, across the road, he took a sudden deviation, so that he lost control over the motorcycle and it hit on a flower shop. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries on 12.05.2006.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 6 insurer of the motorcycle and 3rd respondent is the father of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is restricted to Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy. It was also contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10. Exts.B1 to B2.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident happened while the deceased was riding the motorcycle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,20,500/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, both the original petitioner and 2nd Respondent/ insurer preferred these appeals.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 7

9. Heard Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the original petitioner and Sri.A.R. George, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company.

10. The Point: The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that it is a self accident and as such the tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation against the insurer. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in a claim under under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence need not be looked into and hence she prayed for enhancement of compensation.

11. In the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Muraleedharan and others [MACA No.84 of 2003 (B)] a Larger Bench of this Court after relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi and others 2008 KHC 4640, Ningamma and Another vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2009 KHC 5046 and Ramkhiladi and Another vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd and Another 2020 KHC 6008 held that the owner of the vehicle cannot seek compensation against its own insurer under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

12. It is true that in the instant case, the deceased was not MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 8 the owner of the motorcycle, but the person who received the motorcycle from its owner. Such a person will only step into the shoes of the owner and as such the dictum laid down in the above decisions applies in this case also.

13. In the instant case, as per Ext.B1 policy there a personal accident coverage to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh. In the above circumstances, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent who are the legal heirs of the deceased are together entitled to get only a sum of Rs.1 Lakh along with reasonable rate of interest. Considering the facts, I hold that interest @8% will be reasonable one.

14. Considering the fact that the compensation that can be awarded in which case is only a meager sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, I order that the entire compensation will be paid to the petitioner, widow.

15. In the result, MACA No.1894 of 2013 is partly allowed and MACA No.268 of 2015 is dismissed as follows:- The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 438 days, the period of delay in filing MACA No.268 of 2015, with MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 9 proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the original petitioners, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE S.M.K.