IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1821 of 2005()
1. JOY, S/O.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.M.JOSEPH, S/O.M.U.MATHEW,
... Respondent
2. JOSE, S/O.DEVASSY,
3. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
4. K.S.NABEESA, W/O.M.A.MOIDEEN,
5. M.ABDUL AZIZ, S/O.MUTHU RAWATHER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent :SRI.J.MATHAPPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :22/10/2009
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.NO.1821 OF 2005
.............................................
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in OP(MV)No.860/1999. The
said petition was tried along with the other cases and an
award has been passed under Section 163 A directing
compensation to be paid by respondents 4 and 5 in all the
cases. The question that arises for determination is whether
the Tribunal was justified in directing compensation to be
paid by the owner and the driver of the lorry involved in the
accident. The facts of the case would show that, the
allegation is that, a lorry after overtaking another vehicle,
hit on an auto rickshaw which lost its control on account of
the impact and hit on the pedestrians thereby resulting in
injuries to them. Originally, the claim petition was filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was then
amended as one under Section 163 A. The Tribunal found
that the accident was taken on account of the negligence of
the lorry driver and decided to order those persons to give
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1821 OF 2005
compensation. The Tribunal was totally aware of the fact
that the question of negligence was not a matter for
consideration in a petition under Section 163 A of the Motor
Vehicles Act. So, the decision of the Tribunal on the basis
that the lorry driver was responsible for the accident and
thereby the driver and the owner of the lorry is bound to pay
the compensation may not be a correct order under Section
163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The very purport of Section
163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act is to avoid the finding on
the question of negligence and to restrict the class of
people involved in the accident whose annual income does
not exceed Rs.40,000/= and it is the social benefit
conferred upon the accidental victim who does not have
much financial resources. Another object of the same is to
avoid protraction of the litigation on the question of
negligence. This Court did have an opportunity to consider
the question in the decision reported in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vappu and Others (2007 (3) ACJ
1511) (I was a party to the decision) therein the Division
Bench was made it clear that there was no question of
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1821 OF 2005
apportioning the question of negligence between the joint
tortfeasors in order to apportion their inter se liability in an
application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Section 163 A only contemplates a situation that accident
should have arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle.
2. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the
question in the light of the principles laid down in the
decision referred to above and also any subsequent decision,
if any, and then dispose of the matter in accordance with
law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal
on 1.12.2009.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 4 :
M.A.C.A.NO.1821 OF 2005