Point of Law: Motor Accident - Statutory liability - If claimants are third party, then they are entitled for compensation under S. 140 for no fault liability. Hence, claimants are not entitled for compensation under Section 140 of MV Act.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.476/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II and Additional MACT, Mysuru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the awarding of compensation of Rs.50,000/-under no fault liability.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that when the deceased Nagaraj was coming along with one Ashok in the motor cycle Hero Honda bearing registration No.KA-09-V-8623, due to the sudden impact of a pig which ran away from the land, the deceased fell down and sustained head injuries and inspite of treatment succumbed to death on 18.05.2005. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short).

4. The petitioners in the claim petition have contended that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and he was aged about 39 years as on the date of the accident and was working as a primary school teacher at Malaganakatte Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamrajnagara District and was earning monthly income of Rs.8,000/-and they have lost the income and his love and affection.

5. In pursuance of the claim petition, respondent No.1 filed the objections admitting the averments made in column No.14 and 14(a) and also the ownership of the vehicle. Respondent No.1 also admitted the accident. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 also admitted that the deceased is his co-brother and he had taken his vehicle on that day. The fact explained by Sri Ashok who is none other than the brother-in-law of respondent No.1 and also the averments made in paragraph No.22 are all admitted by him. The respondent No.1 would contend that respondent No.2 who is insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.

6. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the occurrence of the accident as alleged in the petition. The respondent No.2 also denied the issuance of policy and in the case of production of the policy particulars and the policy is issued which is alive on the date of the alleged accident, then the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and also objections raised in the defence along with section 149(2) of the MV Act. The other averments are also denied. It is further contended that the deceased was the rider of the vehicle, who is stepping into the shoes of the insurer of the vehicle. When the accident is a self-accident, even if the policy is alive, it does not cover the risk of the deceased.

7. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, examined claimant No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 11. On the other hand, the respondents examined one witness as R.W.1 and not marked any documents. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-under no fault liability. Hence, the same is questioned before this Court.

8. The appellant Insurance Company in this appeal has raised the contention that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under the head no fault liability even though the claimants are not entitled for compensation under the head no fault liability. The Tribunal was required to have noticed that for one’s own negligence, a claim petition either under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the MV Act is not maintainable. The Tribunal was required to have noticed that a person who drives the vehicle would step into the shoes of the insured and the risk of the owner is not required to be covered and the risk of a person who steps into the shoes of the owner is also not required to be covered as held by the Apex Court in the case of NINGAMMA AND ANOTHER v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. reported in 2009 ACJ 2020 SC.

9. The learned counsel for t