2025:KER:21516 MACA NO.2144 OF 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2144 OF 2006 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.105 OF 2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PONNANI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD,, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/2ND PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 4: 1 SAROJINI KADAMBIL HOUSE, VETTAM-PALLIPPURAM,, CHAMRAVATTAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 2 V. PRINCE SO. CHANDRAN VAYYATT HOUSE, SOUTH ANNARA, TIRUR P.O. 3 THE MANAGING PARTNER M/S SUGEETH MONEY LENDERS, RICE MARKET,, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST PETITIONERS 1,3,4, AND 2ND RESSPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND, HENCE THEY AR 2025:KER:21516 MACA NO.2144 OF 2006 2 BY ADVS. DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:21516 MACA NO.2144 OF 2006 3 J U D G M E N T The 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.105/2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thirur, 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 the legal representatives of the deceased Ganesan, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.10.1999. The above O.P was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the petitioners, on 18.10.1999 at about 1 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motor cycle, an autorickshaw bearing reg.no.KL-10C- 3826 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle and as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and 4th respondent is the owner of the motor cycle. The 3rd respondent is also the insurer of the motor cycle. 2025:KER:21516 MACA NO.2144 OF 2006 4 4. Though originally the OP was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, then it was revealed that the autorickshaw had no valid insurance coverage and the application was converted into one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,36,500/- and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5. Aggrieved by the above award, the 3rd respondent preferred this appeal. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the compensation due to the petitioners under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act? 7. Heard Sri. P.Chandrasekhar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants and Sri.Mathew Jacob, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company. 8. One of the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that since the autorickshaw was not insured with the appellant and hence they are not liable to indemnify the compensation due to the petitioners from 2025:KER:21516 MACA NO.2144 OF 2006 5 the 1st respondent. Further, according to him, since the deceased himself was the rider of the motorcycle, his legal representatives cannot raise a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the appellant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that since the deceased was not the owner of the motorcycle the petitioners can maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the motor cycle. 9. 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. 10. In the instant case, the deceased himself was the rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident. Though he was not the registered owner 2025:KER:21516 MACA NO.2144 OF 2006 6 of the motor cycle when he received his motor cycle from its owner and uses the same he had stepped into the shoes of the owner himself. Therefore, in the light of the above decision of the Larger Bench, the petitioners cannot maintain a claim against the insurer of the motorcycle, argued by the 3rd respondent. 11. Similarly, since the autorickshaw involved in this accident had no valid insurance policy, the petitioners cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the 3rd respondent also. In the circumstances, the impugned award mulcting the liability on the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside and the liability to pay the compensation can only be limited to the 1st respondent, the owner of the autorickshaw. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned award to the extent it directed the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioners is set aside and the liability is limited to the 1st respondent. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE Pvv