The main legal point established in the judgment is that claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are not entertainable when the owner of the vehicle is involved in the accident. Additionally, the judgment emphasized the mandatory conditions required for availing compensation under the Personal Accident Policy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.144 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar.)

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar in M.C.O.P.No.144 of 2012.

2. The appellant is the Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal mainly on the ground that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had erroneously entertained the claim petition, which is otherwise not maintainable and awarded compensation in violation of the principles settled.

3. The accident was caused by an unknown JCB vehicle and not at the instance of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-AL-5208 and the policy in respect of Motor Cycle did not cover the risks of the rider/ owner of the insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. Even as per the findings of the Tribunal, the Motor Cycle was insured to cover the Act liability and it did not cover the risks of the rider of the Motor Cycle and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.1,76,665/- to the claimant. The Tribunal further found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the JCB vehicle and therefore, ought to have dismissed the claim petition. The Ex.P-1 itself was lodged by the claimant after a delay of 210 days. The very delay in filing the FIR itself is a ground for rejection of the claim petition. The genuinity of the claim itself is disputed by the appellant on the ground that the case was registered after 210 days. A claim under Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable only if the tort-feasor is liable and the victim being the tort-feasor is not entitled to maintain a claim either under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. As far as the accident is concerned, it occurred on 20.11.2009 at about 02.00 P.M. and the case was registered by the Keezhkodungalur Police Station in Crime No.232 of 2010 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, after a lapse of about 210 days from the date of accident. The delay in registering the complaint is a vital factor to disbelieve the case of the claimant.

5. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues and found that the factum regarding the accident was established. The Tribunal further considered the fact that the FIR itself was registered after a lapse of about 210 days from the date of accident. As far as the accident is concerned, it was contended before the Tribunal that the JCB vehicle, which came behind the two wheeler driven by the claimant hit from the backside and caused injury to the claimant. Therefore, the owner and the driver of the JCB vehicle are liable to pay compensation and they have not been impleaded as party in the claim petition. However, the Tribunal has not adjudicated the grounds raised regarding the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the accident occurred and the FIR was registered after the lapse of about 210 days and the injuries were established and there is a policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The factors are to be considered for entertaining the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have not been considered by the Tribunal.

6. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ningamma and Another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [2009 ACJ 2020], wherein in paragraphs 18 and 19, it has been held as under:-

“18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi [(2008) 5 SCC 736 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 67] wherein one of us, namely, H