IMPORTANT POINT
A claimant must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act; a driver cannot claim compensation for injuries sustained while driving their own vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 09.08.2016, in M.V.O.P. No. 67 of 2012, on the file of the IX Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittoor (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with regard to the injuries received by him, in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 11.05.2011 at 09.35 p.m. awarded a sum of Rs.2,21,109/- as compensation.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:

(i) Respondent No. 1 is the owner of Maruthi Dzire car bearing No. AP 03 AH 0189 (“offending vehicle” for short). Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the respondent No. 1 vehicle. Petitioner is working as the driver under the respondent No. 1. He is also doing JCB work business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He is also doing civil contract works and earning Rs.1,20,825/- per annum. He has agricultural lands and he is cultivating.

(ii) On 11.05.2011, at 09.35 p.m. on Chittoor-Tirupathi road, the petitioner was coming in a Maruthi Dzire car bearing No. AP 03 AH 0189, belongs to respondent No. 1, as a driver from Tirupathi to Chittoor side slowly and cautiously. When the said car reached Kothur Village, Pakala Mandal, the petitioner lost control over the car and dashed on the road side tamarind tree. As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture on his right hip, right leg, fore head and received injuries all over the body. After the accident, he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore.

(iii) Pakala Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 50 of 2011, under Section 279 I.P.C. Police laid charge sheet against the petitioner at no fault on his part, and it is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala for adjudication. He was quite hale and healthy and energetic prior to the accident. He was working under respondent No. 1 and he was also doing agricultural works and earning Rs.1,20,640/- per annum. Due to the accident, he sustained fracture to his right hip, right leg, fore head and received injuries all over the body. He was inpatient for a period of 25 days. He spent nearly 50,000/- towards his treatment. Still he is taking treatment as outpatient at CHC, Vellore. He required huge amounts. He cannot attend his normal duties. He became permanently disabled. He is the driver of the respondent No. 1’s vehicle and he received injuries while discharging his duties under the respondent No. 1 as driver. Respondent No. 1 validly insured the vehicle with respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the claim.

4.......

(i) Respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle, who is no other than the mother of the claimant remained ex-parte.

(ii) Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company got filed written statement contenting in substance that the petitioner is not 3rd party to the respondent No. 1., as such the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is no other than the son of the respondent No. 1 and he is nothing but owner of the vehicle, and the policy does not cover the risk of the owner, as such the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (the “M.V. Act” for short) is not maintainable. The petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. On account of his own rash and negligent act, he received injuries. He is not entitled for any compensation. Respondent No. 2 is denying the nature of injuries received and the petitioner has to prove the manner of accident and injuries. Petitioner and his mother i.e. the respondent No. 1, colluded with each other and created the documents. The claim is excessive. Hence