The New India Assurance Company Limited [Wrongly Shown As New India Insurance Company In OP(MV). 159 of 2002-Mact, Alappuzha] vs Maniyan, Koramparambil, South Aryad, Alappuzha, Sarasamma and Sajimon

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The Insurance company challenges in this appeal, the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation to respondents 1 to 3 who are legal representatives of one Maniyan, a coir factory employee who lost his life in a road traffic accident. The Original Petition filed by the respondents was one u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal considered the application as one u/s 163A itself. The learned Tribunal nevertheless ordered a total compensation of Rs.2,08,500/- inclusive of compensation for transportation, pain and suffering, loss of love and affection etc. The company challenges the award mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that on the averments in the original petition itself, the deceased was drawing a monthly income of Rs.6000/- and as per Ext.A15 certificate produced by respondents themselves also, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/-. Sri Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel for the appellant Insurance company would argue that on the authority of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, , Section 163A could not have been invoked on the admitted factual situation. We find force in the above submission of the learned senior counsel. It is unfortunate that the learned Tribunal did not notice this crucial aspect of the matter while entertaining and enquiring into the original petition as one u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The next ground on which the award is challenged is founded on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., . The deceased was riding a scooter. The stand taken by the respondent was that the scooter did not belong to the deceased. The scooter belongs to the first respondent. Even then applying the principles laid down in Nigamma''s case (supra), it has to be found that the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner. In other words, the tort is committed by the insured himself. In a self accident, awarding compensation to the respondents, who claimed as legal heirs of the tort-feasors, cannot be countenanced. Even though Sri A. Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondents made a very valient endeavour to support the impugned award, as the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant are founded on judgments of the Supreme Court, we are bound to accept these arguments.

The result is the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside and O.P(MV)No.159/2002 is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant company towards compensation awarded by the Tribunal will be released immediately to the appellant - Insurance company.