A claimant cannot seek compensation for injuries sustained due to his own negligent driving, as he is not considered a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

The injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 22.03.2005 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.413 of 1999.

2. Heard arguments of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for appellant and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

On 11.11.1997 at about 10:30 P.M. a lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-V-4046 proceeding from Eluru to Hyderabad with a load of fish turned turtle near Chandrala Village, N.S.P. Canal and Sri Katepalli Sambasiva Rao suffered grievous injuries. Stating that Sri Vadlamudi Vikram is the owner of the offending vehicle and National Insurance Company Limited insured the offending vehicle, he levied a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and filed O.P.No.413 of 1999. Respondent No.1 therein Sri Vadlamudi Vikram did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company/respondent No.2 therein raised a contest stating that Sri Vadlamudi Vikram/respondent No.1 was not owner of the offending vehicle. It further raised contention that the Claims Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as it is a case of own damage and sought dismissal of the claim.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-V-4046 driven by the petitioner himself?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

5. PWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked for claimant/injured. RWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked for respondent No.2-insurance company.

6. The learned Claims Tribunal found that the claimant injured sustained serious injuries and had undertaken long medical treatment, and he was subjected to four surgeries. Towards pain and suffering, loss of actual earnings, extra nourishment and attendant charges, medical expenses, transportation to hospital and permanent disability it found Rs.98,945/- as just compensation. After recording detailed reasons and after consideration of precedent, it observed that the claimant was not entitled to seek compensation, and the insurance company was not liable. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim petition.

7. Assailing the same, the injured claimant preferred this appeal.

8. Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy the learned counsel contends that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the law and it ought to have granted compensation and citedNational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veldi Chandra Sekhar, 2012 ACJ 1153 (A.P.), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meenaben Mahendrabhai Chavda, [2023 ACJ 949 (Gujarat)] and Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Atika Devi, [2023 ACJ 1575 (Jharkhand)]

9. Against it, Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the grievance of the appellant is misplaced and in the cases of own damage the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the impugned award is right on law in the context of the facts available o