RTO Not Liable To Compensate Victim For Accident From Uninsured Vehicle: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that Registration Authorities like the Road Transport Officer (RTO) or the District Collector cannot be made liable to pay compensation for road accidents from uninsured vehicles.Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the owner of the vehicle has the primary responsibility to get the vehicle insured, so the owner alone or driver or both will be liable to...
The Kerala High Court has held that Registration Authorities like the Road Transport Officer (RTO) or the District Collector cannot be made liable to pay compensation for road accidents from uninsured vehicles.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the owner of the vehicle has the primary responsibility to get the vehicle insured, so the owner alone or driver or both will be liable to pay compensation for road accident if the vehicle was not insured.
“The primary responsibility is of the motor vehicle owner to get insured the motor vehicle. In case, if the motor vehicle owner fails to get the motor vehicle insured, the liability for payment of compensation would not fall upon to the registration authority. It means that the responsibility is of the owner alone or the driver or both to make payment of the compensation for the accident.”
The above observations were made in an original petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased against the dismissal of their impleading application by the Motor Accidents Tribunal. In a road accident, a lawyer who was riding a scooter was hit by an uninsured bullet driven by the first respondent and owned by the second respondent. Due to serious head injuries from the accident, the lawyer succumbed to his injuries. The legal heirs were the petitioners who filed claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Tribunal. An impleading application was filed to implead the RTO as a respondent in the claim petition for failing to perform his statutory duties. This was rejected by the Tribunal and was challenged before the High Court.
The Court found that the impleading application was filed because the road accident occurred due to an insured vehicle and it was the duty of the RTO to register uninsured vehicles and oversee that uninsured vehicles are not on the road.
“The ground on which the impleadment was sought is that, it was the duty of the R.T.O to see that the uninsured vehicle did not ply on the road and therefore, the R.T.O failed to discharge his statutory function.”
The Court concurred with the findings of the Motor Accidents Tribunal that as per Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner or the insurer has to pay compensation to the victim. If the owner has a valid insurance policy, then the vehicle insurer will pay the compensation and not the RTO or the District Collector, it noted thus:
“The first liability is upon the owner of the vehicle. Since the owner has insurance policy, the vehicle insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The R.T.O or the District Collector is not necessary to settle the claim.”
On the above observations, the Court dismissed the original application.
The Petitioners were represented by Advocates Zubair Pulikkool, Arshid.M.S. and Arunkumar P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
Case title: Smitha T T v. Sreeroop V
Case number: OP (MAC) NO. 111 OF 2023