A tortfeasor or wrongdoer cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the owner of the vehicle or a person stepping into the owner's shoes cannot claim compensation for their own wrongdoing.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 30.04.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai.

2. The appellant Insurance Company is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai. The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants and the third respondent is the mother of the respondents 1 and 2 and owner of the Car involved in the accident.

3. According to the respondents 1 and 2, they were travelling in the Car belonging to the third respondent on 27.01.2007. At that time, it was raining and visibility was very poor and hence, the driver of the Car/father of the respondents 1 and 2 and husband of the third respondent was driving the same carefully adhering to the traffic rules. Due to Act of God, the Car dashed against the Tree on the left side of the road and he died in the accident. The deceased was working as driver of the third respondent. The deceased was aged 43 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as Batta. The third respondent is also entitled to compensation, as she lost both her husband and the travelling business of the Car. The respondents 1 and 2 lost the income of the deceased and as legal heirs of the deceased, they are entitled to compensation. The vehicle was insured with the appellant and hence, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The third respondent filed counter statement supporting the claim of the respondents 1 and 2.

5. The appellant filed counter statement and denied all the averments and contended that the deceased is the husband of the third respondent and he was not employed as driver of the third respondent. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. He is the tort-feasor and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, is not maintainable, as according to the respondents, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as Batta and the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable only if the annual income is less than Rs.40,000/- and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the third respondent and the appellant, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased. Though the respondents 1 and 2 have claimed that the deceased was paid salary at Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as Batta, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- per month and held that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable and granted compensation of Rs.1,42,600/- each to the respondents 1 and 2 and Rs.1,77,600/- to the third respondent.

8. Against the said award dated 30.04.2012, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the claim petition is not maintainable, as tort-feasor cannot claim compensation for his own wrong. The claim petition under Section 163-A is not maintainable, when the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased. The third respondent has admitted that due to negligence of the deceased, the accident took place. In any event, if the respondents are entitled to compensation, they can claim compensation only under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act under no fault liability.

10. The deceased being a tort-feasor/wrong-doer, the respondents are not entitled to claim any compensation. In the present case, the third respondent, who is the wife the deceased, is the owner of the vehic