JUDGMENT : [1.] Heard Mr. Zochh uana, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. [2.] This appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 33/2018, by which the learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 25.07.2018 till final payment. [3.] The appellant’s counsel submits that the daughter of the respondent/claimant was a pillion rider in a Scooty bearing No. MZ01-N-7328 driven by one Mr. Lalhmangaihzuala. When the Scooty tried to overtake a Truck bearing No. NL01-Q-9257, the daughter of the respondent/claimant fell off the Scooty and was crushed by the right rear wheel of the Truck. The accident occurred on 27.05.2018 at around 4:20 P.M. and as a result of the accident, the deceased died on the way to the hospital. [4.] The respondent/claimant thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, herein after referred to as “the Act”. [5.] The appellant/Insurance Company submitted their written statement stating that they were not liable in respect of any claim made by the respondent/claimant and further stated, amongst other things, that the Police report did not mention the availability of the Driving License of the driver/rider of the Scooty. [6.] The learned Tribunal framed 2 (two) issues, which are as follows:- “i) Whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style? ii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extent and who is liable to pay?” [7.] The respondent/claimant gave her evidence before the learned Tribunal and Mr. K.M. Sharma, the Branch Manager of the appellant/Insurance Company also adduced evidence on behalf of the appellant. [8.] The learned Tribunal thereafter came to a finding that the claim petition was maintainable and that the respondent/claimant was entitled to payment of compensation. [9.] The appellant/Insurance Company made a plea before the learned Tribunal that the liability for payment of compensation must be shared by the appellant alongwith the driver/owner of the Scooty @ 50%. [10.] The learned Tribunal, after going through the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi Vs. [9.] The appellant/Insurance Company made a plea before the learned Tribunal that the liability for payment of compensation must be shared by the appellant alongwith the driver/owner of the Scooty @ 50%. [10.] The learned Tribunal, after going through the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi Vs. The United India Insurance reported in AIR 2020 SC 527 , (2020) 2 SCC 550 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710 and in the case of Shivaji and Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2018(3) TAC 673 SC, held that the claimant was entitled to make a claim against both the owners or either of the owners of the involved vehicles. [11.] The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal erred, in fastening the liability for payment of compensation, only upon the owner of the Truck, as 2 (two) vehicles were involved in the accident. As such, the liability for payment of the compensation would have to be apportioned equally upon both the vehicles’ owners @ 50%. [12.] Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submits that in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that a claim petition could be filed against either of the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident, even though more than 1 (one) vehicle was involved in the accident. He thus submits that there is no infirmity with the learned Tribunal fastening the liability for payment of the entire compensation amount upon the appellant/Insurance Company which had insured the Truck. He also submits that the owner/rider of the Scooty were not required to be made parties in the claim petition and neither did the appellant/Insurance Company make any application for impleadment of the said persons before the learned Tribunal. [13.] Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant also submits that the accident occurred when the Scooty tried to overtake/pass the Truck. There was no collision between the 2 (two) vehicles. The pillion rider/deceased fell off the Scooty and the right rear wheel of the Truck ran over the deceased. [14.] I have heard the counsels for the parties. [15.] In the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company & Anr. There was no collision between the 2 (two) vehicles. The pillion rider/deceased fell off the Scooty and the right rear wheel of the Truck ran over the deceased. [14.] I have heard the counsels for the parties. [15.] In the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company & Anr. (Supra), the Apex Court was seized of a matter where two motorcycles collided with one another, which resulted in the driver of the motorcycle No. RJ 02 SA 7811 losing his life. The claim petition under Section 163 of the Act was filed only against the owner of RJ 02 SA 7811. The Apex Court held that as the deceased had driven the motorcycle RJ 02 SA 7811 with the permission of the owner, the deceased could not be a 3rd party, as the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner who was not a 3rd party. Accordingly, no claim could have been made against the owner of the motorcycle RJ 02 SA 7811. The Apex Court thus held that the claim under Section 163-A would have to be made against the driver/ insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, as the deceased was a 3rd party against the owner/insurer of the said motorcycle. [16.] In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710 , the Apex Court held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to understand Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988, as contemplating such a situation would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction of Section 163-A, which is “final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claimants of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time”. The Apex Court thus held that if the insurer was permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section 163-A of the Act, it would bring a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act at par with a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act, which would not only be self contradictory, but also defeat the very legislative intent. The Apex Court thus held that if the insurer was permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section 163-A of the Act, it would bring a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act at par with a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act, which would not only be self contradictory, but also defeat the very legislative intent. The Apex Court thus held that the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. In the case of Shivaji & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors., reported in 2018 (3) TAC 673 (SC), the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. (Supra). [17.] In the present case, the claimants has preferred a claim only against one of the two vehicles involved in the accident, which resulted in the death of the daughter of the respondent/claimant. As can be seen from the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the accident occurred when the Scooty tried to overtake the truck. The pillion rider fell off the Scooty and was crushed by the right rear wheel of the truck. Prima Facie, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck or the rider of the Scooty. There is no statement made by either of the parties that there was any collision of the two vehicles. No damage whatsoever was caused to the Scooty and there is no evidence to show that the Scooty was not under the control of the rider at any time. Be that as it may, the pillion rider fell off the Scooty, when the Scooty was trying to overtake the truck. [18.] In the present case, while the deceased was a 3rd party in relation to both the owners/insurers of the truck and the Scooty, the claim under Section 163-A has been made only against the owner/insurer of the truck. The question is whether it is necessary to implead both the owners/insurers of involved accident vehicles in the claim petition. [18.] In the present case, while the deceased was a 3rd party in relation to both the owners/insurers of the truck and the Scooty, the claim under Section 163-A has been made only against the owner/insurer of the truck. The question is whether it is necessary to implead both the owners/insurers of involved accident vehicles in the claim petition. [19.] A perusal of the records of the learned Tribunal show that the Police report dated NIL, which has been exhibited as Ext P-2, is to the effect that the Truck collided with the Scooty and as a result of which, the pillion rider fell under the Truck and was run over by the Truck. Interestingly, though the Police report dated NIL has been exhibited, the author of the Police report, i.e., S.I. HT Tluanga Colney has not been examined by the Court. [20.] In the case of LIC & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 , the Apex Court has held that at the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents, but not it’s truth. It also held that mere making of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. [21.] In view of the above, it cannot be said that the contents of the Police report dated NIL is the true fact narrative of how the deceased died. While the Police report states that there was a collision, the submissions made by the counsels for the parties clearly reflect the fact that there was no collision between the 2 (two) vehicles. Accordingly, the content of Ext P-2 is inadmissible as evidence. [22.] The above being said, the question that has still to be decided is whether it was necessary for the claimant/respondent to implead both the owners/insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ratheesh & Ors., Case No. MACA No. 2414/2008, in which the question was “when plurality of vehicles are involved in an accident, does the victim/claimant have the unfettered option/right to claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against either or both the owners/insurers of the vehicles. Ltd. Vs. Ratheesh & Ors., Case No. MACA No. 2414/2008, in which the question was “when plurality of vehicles are involved in an accident, does the victim/claimant have the unfettered option/right to claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against either or both the owners/insurers of the vehicles. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the above case relied upon another Division Bench case of the Kerala High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhavan, reported in 2011(3) KLT 452 , wherein the provisions of Section 140 and Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was analyzed in paragraph Nos. 13 to 18. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in both the above cases came to the conclusion that in a claim under Section 16-A of the MV Act, the claimant has the unfettered option/choice to stake his claim against either or both (any or all) the owners/insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident. The Delhi High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Thakur & Ors., Mac App. No. 692/2007, vide Judgment dated 11.05.2012, held that there is no escape from the conclusion that a claimant choosing a remedy under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is entitled to sue and recover compensation as per the structured formula from the owner/insurer of any or all the vehicles involved in the accident. In the above case, as the claimants had made a claim against both the accident vehicles, the Delhi High Court held that the liability being joint and several, both the owners of the vehicles involved in the incident were equally liable to pay the compensation in equal proportion. [23.] In the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 , injuries were sustained by the claimants when two vehicles collided with each other. A claim was made under Section 166 of the MV Act for compensation for the combined wrongful act of joint tortfeasors. The Apex Court in the above case of Khenyei(Supra)held that the claimants could sue both or any one of the owners/insurers of the vehicles. The operative portion of the judgment is at paragraph No. 22 as follows:- “22. A claim was made under Section 166 of the MV Act for compensation for the combined wrongful act of joint tortfeasors. The Apex Court in the above case of Khenyei(Supra)held that the claimants could sue both or any one of the owners/insurers of the vehicles. The operative portion of the judgment is at paragraph No. 22 as follows:- “22. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows: 22.1 In the case of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. 22.2 In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-a-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. 22.3 In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. 22.4 It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasors should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.” [24.] In the present case, the claim under Section 163-A has been made by the claimant/respondent only against the owner/insurer of the truck and the owner/insurer of the Scooty has not been made a party. Considering the above fact, it was always open for the appellant Insurance Company to make a submission before the learned Tribunal for impleading the owner/insurer of the Scooty, which it failed to do. Considering the above fact, it was always open for the appellant Insurance Company to make a submission before the learned Tribunal for impleading the owner/insurer of the Scooty, which it failed to do. Further, this Court is in respectful agreement with the judgments of the Kerala High Court and the Delhi High Court, wherein it has been held that a claimant can choose to sue and recover compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the owner/insurer of any or all of the vehicles involved in the accident. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, this Court is also of the view that a claim under Section 163-A of the Act can be made against the owner/insurer of any or all of the vehicles involved in the accident/death of the deceased. [25.] In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment & Award dated 27.07.2020 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 33/2018. [26.] The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-shall be returned to the appellant. 50% of the awarded amount, i.e. Rs. 2,75,000/-deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court vide Cheque No. 295046 dated 10.05.2021 shall be disbursed to the respondent on proper identification. The balance amount of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be deposited by the appellant alongwith the interest awarded within 1 (one) month with the learned Tribunal. [27.] The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Send back the LCR.