IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1725 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.563/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., METRO PALACE, OPP: NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT AND PETRITIONER --------------------------------------------- 1. BABY GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY, MUTHANANTTU HOUSE, YENTHAYAR P.O., KOOTICAKL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. V.C.SEBASTIAN, S/O.CHACKO, VARICKAMAKKAL HOSUE, URUMBIKKARA KARA, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADU TALUK. 3. THRESSIAMMA SEBASTIAN, W/O.V.C.SEBASTIAN, VARICKAMAKKAL HOUSE, URUMBIKKARA KARA, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADU TALUK. 4. MERIN SEBASTIAN, D/O.V.C.SEBASTIAN, VARICKAMAKKAL HOUSE, URUMBIKKARA KARA, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADU TALUK. ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI FOR R1 SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM FOR R2,3,4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1725 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed challenging the award granting compensation of Rs.1,63,000/- for the death of a 32 year old driver of a jeep which capsized leading to his death. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that compensation cannot be claimed for the death of a driver under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, we have in other cases taken the view that the driver is covered, if not as an employee, but as a third party as the insured is authorised to have the insured vehicle driven by a paid employee. Even as an employee, compensation is payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the driver. Even though counsel for the appellant submitted that the quantum of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act are different, we do not think there is any scope for interference because in 2 absolute terms the compensation of Rs.1,63,000/- cannot be held to be high. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms