AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mary Joseph, J.
Challenge is raised in the appeal on hand against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 24.07.2010 in O.P.(MV) No.498 of 2006. The appellants are the petitioners before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.
It is contended by the petitioners that a motor accident was occurred at about 10.00 hrs on 07.03.2004, when a Motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 10G 1039 ridden by one Mr.Hamza hit against a compound wall situated on the side of the road at Thovungal. 1st respondent was the registered owner of the Motorcycle and the 2nd respondent, its insurer. A sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was claimed as compensation in the Original Petition filed.
The 1st respondent did not turn up to contest the Original Petition. The 2nd respondent filed written statement admitting insurance coverage for the Motorcycle involved in the accident but disputed it’s liability to indemnify the insured. It was alleged that the deceased while riding the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and thereby hit against a compound wall. It was further alleged that additional premium was not collected to cover the risk of the rider of the vehicle stands chargesheeted by the police for rash and negligent riding.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the basis of it’s finding on issue No.1 extracted hereinbelow:
“1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act ?”.
The Tribunal answered the issue in the negative, for the reason that the deceased being stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, is not covered by the certificate of insurance stands issued for the vehicle.
The petitioners are legal heirs of Mr.Hamza and compensation for his death was claimed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). As per the pleadings in the Original Petition deceased Hamza was allegedly earning a monthly income of Rs.7,500/- at the relevant time of his death. A person with a monthly income of Rs.7,000/- is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163 A of the Act. Claim for compensation under the Second Schedule is confined to a victim of motor accident having an annual income to the maximum of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, to be eligible for raising a claim for compensation under Section 163 A, as per the 2nd Schedule, the victim must have an annual income to the maximum of Rs.40,000/-. If the annual income is above Rs.40,000/-, for that reason itself, the victim of a motor accident is disentitled to claim compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The Tribunal has answered issue No.1 correctly in the negative and therefore, interference is totally uncalled for.
Appeal fails for the reason and is dismissed.