LAWS(KER)-2020-2-316

JOSE Vs. ANTO

Decided On February 11, 2020
JOSE Appellant
V/S
ANTO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.164 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one Joby, son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of appellants 3 and 4, in a motor accident which occurred on 07.07.2000, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/D-2669, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2 nd respondent. At the place of accident, the motorcycle capsized and the deceased sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on 10.07.2000, at Elite Mission Hospital, Koorkenchery. Alleging that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident, involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KL- 8/D-2669, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

(2.) The Tribunal, by the impugned award, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,23,500/-, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate cost, and the 1st respondent owner was directed to satisfy the award. Since Ext.B1 insurance policy was an 'act only' policy, the Tribunal exonerated the 2 nd respondent insurer, relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. B. Rukiya and others [2006 (4) KLT 192], wherein it was held that the person liable to pay compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is the owner of the vehicle. In the absence of personal accident coverage for the owner in the policy, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation for the personal injury or death of the owner.

(3.) The award passed by the Tribunal, to the extent of exonerating the 2nd respondent insurer for the liability to pay the amount of compensation is under challenge in this appeal.