Point of Law: Motor Accident - Respondent/claimant is not covered under the M.V. Act as the injured/claimant stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle in question. Thus, he cannot be stated to be third party for the purpose of awarding the compensation under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and order dated 25.10.2010 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,61,000/- passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1542/2005.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 17.12.2003, the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01/L-8432 from Guwahati to Changsari and when he reached Silemahekhaity, all of a sudden, he lost control over the vehicle and the said vehicle fell by the side of the road. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was admitted to the hospital. After the accident, the Kamalpur P.S. recorded G.D.E. vide No. 261 dated 17.12.2003. At the relevant time of the accident, the alleged vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Limited.

3. During the trial, the National Insurance Company Limited has submitted their written statement wherein the Insurance Company has stated that the claim petition is not maintainable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the injured driver who is the claimant was himself driving the vehicle and the accident occurred as he lost control over the vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle. As such, the claimant who is not a third party as envisaged under Section 147 of the M.V. Act of 1988 cannot maintain an application even under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988, because a person cannot be legally liable to himself for his own actions and seek compensation from himself. The person who himself caused the accident and out of whose own act the loss/injury occurred to him is not a person under the purview of Section 163A because the Section 163A was introduced by the Legislature into the M.V. Act of 1988 to provide any relief to the person who is the victim of a rash and negligent driving by another person and not for the benefit of the person who is himself responsible for causing the accident.

4. The claimant side has examined two witnesses including himself and the Insurance Company also adduced one witness to prove the policy of the vehicle.

5. After hearing both sides, learned Tribunal has delivered the judgment as aforesaid.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Member, MACT Kamrup (M), as aforesaid.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the award is against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In MACT cases there are three necessary parties i.e. claimant, insured and the insurer. In the instant case, the injured/claimant has stepped into the shoes of the owner. Thus, the claimant/injured cannot be termed as a third party for the purpose of awarding the compensation under the Act.

8. Learned counsel further contended that the findings given by the learned Tribunal are on incorrect appreciation of the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 3056 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 417. Thus, the learned counsel argued that as the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, it is primarily the liability of the owner to indemnify the claimant.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant did not appear to argue the case. The case is pending in the Court since 2011 and several adjournments were taken and as such, the matter is reserved for judgment without giving further time to the respondent side to argue the matter.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the Insurance company and perused the record carefully. It is not disputed that the claimant was the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01/L-8432. From the record of MAC Case No. 1542/2005, it reveals that the claimant/respondent No. 1 was examined a