NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. P.K.RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the Insurance Company in OP(MV) No.226/2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. They were the insurer of a Motor Cycle involved in the accident which is the subject matter of the claim. The claim was filed by the legal representatives of Santhosh, who was riding the motor cycle in question. The motor cycle hit against another car owned and driven by respondents 4 and 5. The 6th respondent herein is the owner of the motor cycle driven by the deceased. The claim was one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal entered a finding that in a claim under Section 163A the question of negligence has no relevance and once an accident is proved the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the death or bodily injury caused to the claimant for the deceased on the future. Consequently, an amount of Rs.3,16,500/ - was awarded as compensation to respondents 1 to 3 as the legal heirs of the deceased Santhosh. That award is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, the finding that in a claim under Section 163A has no relevance has been negatived by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Vs. V.Sinitha, 2011(4) KLT 821 (SC) which has been followed by Full Bench of this court, in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Joseph, 2012 (2) KLT 132(F.B), wherein it has been held that negligence is relevant but the onus of proving liability or non liability shifts to the respondents. It has been held in those decisions that in case of a self accident, the Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle cannot be made liable to pay compensation for disability or death caused by the accident.

(3.) THE respondents 1 to 3 could not contradict the contention of the appellant based on the decisions of the Supreme Court and this court cited Supra . But the claimant submits that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of Paragraph 11 of the decision of the full bench in Joseph's case (Supra), in so far as the policy covered the owner -cum -driver of the vehicle for personal accident. According to the respondents 1 to 3, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs.United India Insurance Company Ltd (2009 ACJ 2020) when a person borrows a vehicle for riding the borrower steps into the shoes of the owner in which case the benefits applicable under the policy for an owner should ensure to the rider as well.