2025:KER:24939 MACA NO.1148 OF 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 1148 OF 2006 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2005 IN OPMV NO.992 OF 2002 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, THALIPARAMBA, NOW REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE,, KOCHI-18. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 MOHAMMEDKUNHI BENOOR OF KALANAD VILLAGE,, PERUMBALA.P.O,, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2 UMMALIUMMA WO.MOHAMMADKUNHI BENOOR OF KALANAD VILLAGE,, PERUMBALA.P.O,, KASARAGOD TALUK. 3 TAHIHARA DO.MOHAMMADKUNHI BENOOR OF KALANAD VILLAGE,, PERUMBALA.P.O,, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2025:KER:24939 MACA NO.1148 OF 2006 2 4 AHAMMAD RAUF SO.MOHAMMADKUNHI BENOOR OF KALANAD VILLAGE,, PERUMBALA.P.O,, KASARAGOD TALUK. 5 TASRIFA DO.MOHAMMADKUNHI BENOOR OF KALANAD VILLAGE,, PERUMBALA.P.O,, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV T.P.SAJID THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:24939 MACA NO.1148 OF 2006 3 J U D G M E N T The 2nd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.992/2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasargod, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The petitioners are parents and siblings of the deceased Sherif, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.08.2002. The above O.P was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the petitioners, on 31.08.2002 at about 12.00 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motor cycle with one Noushad as pillion rider, the motorcycle hit against a concrete pillar situated on the side of the road and as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has passed an award granting a compensation of Rs.2,20,500/- and directed the 2nd respondent insurer to pay the same. Aggrieved by the above award, the insurer preferred this appeal. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that in the light of the decision of the five judge bench of this Court, the 2025:KER:24939 MACA NO.1148 OF 2006 4 insurer cannot raise a claim under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act against his own insurer and as such the Tribunal was not justified in mulcting the appellant with the liability to pay the compensation awarded in this case. 5. Earlier, when the matter was pending before a Division Bench of this court, the question whether the insured can maintain a claim against the insurer under S.163A of the M.V.Act was referred to a Full Bench. Ultimately, a five judge bench 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. 6. In the above circumstance, the impugned award to the extent it directed the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioners is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award to the extent it directed the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation to 2025:KER:24939 MACA NO.1148 OF 2006 5 the petitioners is set aside. In other words, the liability to pay the compensation awarded in this case is limited to the 1st respondent. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE Pvv