A deceased vehicle rider cannot claim Section 163-A compensation absent third-party status.

The deceased, Harisdas Mahant alias Mintudas Mahant, aged about 21 years, was employed as a labourer at Krishna Auto Tractor Agency.

On 24 October 2019, he was riding motorcycle No. CG-11-AE-7753, owned by respondent No. 1, from the agency to the railway station on work-related instructions.

While returning, the motorcycle allegedly developed a mechanical fault, causing the deceased to fall and suffer grievous injuries.

He died while being transported to the hospital.

The deceased’s legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 22,09,400/- against the vehicle owner and insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident resulted from a mechanical fault in the motorcycle while it was being driven by the deceased.

It dismissed the claim on the ground that a claim under Section 163-A was not maintainable where the deceased was the rider/driver of the vehicle and not a third party.

The claimants challenged that award under Section 173 of the Act.

Whether the legal representatives of a deceased rider/driver can maintain a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident?

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation when the insurance policy did not cover any additional risk relating to the owner or driver of the vehicle?

The Court applied Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for compensation on a structured-formula basis in cases of death or permanent disablement arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, without requiring proof of wrongful act or negligence, but in favour of victims legally covered by the provision.

Relying on Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, and Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 550, the Court held that Section 163-A is not applicable where the deceased was the owner of the vehicle or had stepped into the shoes of the owner; such a person is not a third party in relation to the vehicle.

The Court also relied on the insurance policy and evidence showing that no additional premium had been paid for coverage of the owner or driver.

The deceased was himself riding the motorcycle when the accident occurred and was therefore not a third party to the offending vehicle.

Although the accident was attributed to a mechanical fault rather than negligence, the no-fault nature of Section 163-A did not eliminate the requirement that the claimant fall within the class of persons covered by that provision.

Applying Ningamma and Ramkhiladi, the Court held that the deceased, as the rider and person in control of the vehicle, could not claim compensation under Section 163-A against the owner and insurer in the same manner as a third-party victim.

Further, the insurance policy did not include coverage for the owner or driver, since no premium had been paid for that risk.

Accordingly, the Tribunal had correctly dismissed the claim petition.

The absence of any additional insurance premium for coverage of the owner or driver also precluded recovery under the policy.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and there was no order as to costs.