K. Kannan J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals are against the dismissal of the petitions for compensation in a case of the motor -cylist and pillion rider getting killed by an unknown vehicle. The owner of the unknown vehicle was, therefore, obviously not made a party and the claim was made against the insurer of the motor cycle in which they were travelling. They were not able to establish that there was any liability for the insurance company to satisfy the claim of either the driver of the motor cycle or the pillion rider. In a case of the involvement of yet another vehicle FAO No. 2528 of 2010 (O&M) -2 and the claimants are not able to prove the identity of the other vehicle, the right of enforcement of a claim against the insurer of the motor cycle in which they were travelling would arise for a driver if he comes within the four corners of the Workmen's Compensation Act or if there was a personal accident cover. In respect of pillion rider, the right of recovery will be for a risk for bodily injury or death if there is a valid insurance cover to protect the claim against the owner at the instance of the representative of the pillion rider. These aspects of liability against owner and insurer had not been established and the claim petitions had been dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel states that among other grounds, the claim petitions were omitted to be considered under Section 163 -A on account of the fact that the claimants were contending that their income was above Rs. 40,000/ -. Learned Counsel would urge that without an adjudication relating to the income, the Tribunal could not have decided the same on the inapplicability of the said provision. If an assertion is made in the petition that the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/ -and at the trial, the Tribunal undertakes an adjudication relating to the income and finds that the income was even less than Rs. 40,000/ -then it might become possible for a Tribunal to apply the provisions of Section 163 -A provided the other legal ingredients are satisfied. If on the other hand, the Tribunal proceeds to accept the averment made in the petition as regards the income, there is no necessity for the Tribunal to explain why it accepted the contention. The dismissal could happen in limine on the basis of the disclosures made by the claimant himself. In these cases, I have found a justification for dismissal not merely by inapplicability of Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act but also by a fact that there was no cause of action disclosed against the insurer to enforce the claim. The claim petitions had been dismissed rightly and there is no scope for interference in appeals. The appeals are dismissed. The Appellant shall be at liberty to approach the competent authority for suitable relief provided by law under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It shall not become necessary for the Government to re -examine afresh whether the death had resulted only by virtue of a motor accident. If there is a time frame within which the application were to be filed before the competent authority, the fact of pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal and before this Court may be considered and a due exclusion be made to take up the case and provide the lump sum payment under the said Section.;