The central legal point established in the judgment is the special nature of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which does not require the establishment of negligence and provides for compensation without the need to plead or establish wrongful act or neglect. The judgment also emphasizes the joint and several liability of vehicle owners in cases of shared negligence.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant, whose claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that had occurred on 14.11.2002 was negatived and a compensation of Rs.25000/-was granted under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act under 'No Fault Liability" by the Judgement and Decree dated 31.7.2007 made in MCOP.No.1726/2003 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Krishnagiri.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are that on 14.11.2002 at about 6.40 p.m. the claimant was travelling in a share auto along with his relatives from Nallampatti to Avvainagar to attend a death condolence and when the share auto was proceeding near Nagarkoodal bridge, a tempo was taken on reverse by its driver and on seeing the tempo being taken on reverse by its driver, the driver of the share auto, instead of making efforts to avoid the vehicle hitting the tempo, jumped out from the share auto and the share auto went and hit against the rear side of the tempo, as a result of which, the claimant and other passengers in the share auto sustained injuries.

3. In the claim petition, it is alleged that the driver of the share auto was negligent in causing the accident and therefore, the claim petition was filed against the owner and the Insurer of the share auto. In the counter filed by the Insurance Company, apart from denying the allegations made in the claim petition, it was contended that the share auto was not insured with the Insurance Company at the relevant period.

4. Before the Tribunal, the injured claimant examined himself as PW.1 and deposed that when the tempo was moving on reverse by its driver with red signals on, the driver of the share auto had driven the share auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear side of the tempo and thus caused the accident. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P1 before the Tribunal, in which it has been averred that the tempo van was stationed in the middle of the bridge without any space on other side and on seeing this, the driver of the share auto got down from the share auto and was standing by the side of the auto. At that time, the driver of the tempo moved the vehicle on reverse and dashed against the share auto. Due to the said impact, the share auto capsized on its right side causing injuries to the passengers. The Tribunal, taking note of the contrary evidence led by the claimants, inasmuch as PW'1s evidence shows that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the share auto driver, whereas in Ex.P1 the averments made indicated that the tempo driver was negligent in causing the accident, came to the conclusion that claimant is not entitled to any compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a compensation of Rs.25000/- under 'No Fault Liability', which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. The involvement of vehicles, namely the share auto and the tempo, is not disputed. In fact, the evidence of PW.1 and the First Information Report indicated that the tempo was coming on its reverse and the front portion of the share auto had hit against the rear side of the tempo in the river bridge. It is no doubt true that there is contradictory version of PW.1 from the averments stated in Ex.P1 regarding the negligence attributable to the drivers of the concerned vehicles. The First Information Report was lodged by one of the brothers of PW.1, who is also one of the passengers and said to have sustained injuries in the accident. Pending this appeal, the owner of the tempo was impleaded as the 3rd Respondent. According to the claimant, there was no policy of insurance for the tempo, which is involved in the accident.

6. Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, the learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the accident was caused when the share auto hit a