IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1887 of 2005(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1730/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.PATTALI SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CYRIL, S/O.SAHAYAM, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, THUMBA, PALLITHURA P.O., KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MRS.S.CYRIL, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM, THUMBA, PALLITHURA P.O., KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOY, S/O.ANTONY, PERAIRA PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, THUMBA, PALLITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm M.A.C.A.No. 1887/05 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 3407/2007 IN IM.A.C.A. NO. 1887/2005 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 13.08.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1887 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP(MV) 1730/00. It was an application filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The owner of the vehicle was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler. On account of the negligent driving of the rider, he sustained injuries. He had claimed compensation. It is true that in a case under section 163A of the Act the question of negligence need not be considered. 2. The question that arises for determination is whether the owner of a vehicle can claim compensation under section 163A of the Act. This has been considered by a Division Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rukiya [2006 (4) KLT 192]. It is held therein that insurer cannot be held liable for compensation for injuries on insured if there is no personal accident coverage in the policy even in the case of a comprehensive policy. So unless there is a personal accident coverage, the owner is not entitled to claim compensation. Recently a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court also has considered the question in the decision reported in Sunita Lokhande and Others v. New India MACA No. 1887/05 2 Assurance Co. ltd. and Others [2008 ACJ 921]. The court held that the owner is not a third party to a policy of insurance. It also relied upon the decision of the Apex court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha and Others [2007 ACJ 818] held that “The additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only would be attracted in the present case.” 3. So the catena of decisions indicates that the owner is not covered by a policy unless there is a personal accident coverage. There is no such contention for the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount is without any basis. Being a claim under section 163A of the Act, driver also cannot be made liable. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 1887/05 3