Claim U/S.163A (1) Motor Vehicles Act Will Not Lie Against Any Person Other Than Owner & Insurer Of Motor Vehicle: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal whereby the Insurer was asked to recover the motor accident compensation from the Managing Partner, Supervisor and other employees of a construction company.

The Single Bench of Justice C.Pratheep Kumar referred to the judgment in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Madhavan M. & Ors. (2011) and said, “...the above substantiates the conclusion that a claim under Section 163A (1) of the MV Act will not lie against a person other than the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle, especially because, in a claim under Section 163A (1) there is no necessity to plead or establish negligence.”

Advocate Reji George represented the Appellant while Advocate S. Santhosh Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Original Petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the parents of the deceased Josemon who died in a motor vehicle accident in the year 2003. According to the petitioners, the deceased was riding a pillion on a motorcycle ridden by one George Silvan @ George and when it reached near a Hotel, the motorcycle fell into a trench taken in the road. He sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The first respondent is the owner of the motorcycle and the second respondent is its insurer.

Subsequently, additional respondents 3 to 8 being the Managing partners, Supervisor, Chief Engineer and other employees of a construction company were also impleaded and it was alleged that during the construction of a trench in the public road, all the additional respondents negligently kept the trench opened during the night, without providing any barricades. Thus, the accident occurred. The Tribunal directed the Insurer to pay a compensation of Rs.3,43,500 and further permitted the Insurer to recover the same from the additional respondents 3 to 8. Being aggrieved, the additional respondents approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 163A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Bench explained that the liability to pay compensation is only to “the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer”.

The Bench also referred to the judgment in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., (Supra) relied upon by the appellant wherein it has been observed that a claim under Section 163A can lie only against the owner of the vehicle and the authorised insurer. It was observed therein that a claim under the above provision will not lie against a driver, unless he is the owner also.

Thus, reaffirming the view that a claim under Section 163A (1) will not lie against a person other than the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Award of the Tribunal permitting the Insurer to recover the compensation from additional respondents 3 to 8.

Cause Title: M.J.Joy v. P.J.Varghese & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:21530)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Reji George, Gopakumar G. Aluva

Respondent: Advocate S. Santhosh Kumar

Click here to read/download Order