The deceased, as a borrower of the vehicle, could not maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court emphasized the principles of 'No Fault Liability' and the requirements for claiming compensation under the Personal Accident Policy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 13.11.2014, made in M.C.O.P.No.5885 of 2011, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.5885 of 2011.

2. The facts in nutshell as narrated in the claim petition are that on 10.07.2011 at about 2.00 hours, when the deceased was riding the first respondent's motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 10 AB 1557 and proceeding in Tambaram Maduravoyal Byepass Road, near tollgate, at that time, an unknown motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle of the deceased thereby the deceased lost control and hit the Center Median and he fell down on the road. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries all over his body and died on 15.07.2011.

3. The first respondent Mr.V.Dilli babu is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the claim petition is filed against both the respondents. The appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. mainly raised a question regarding the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The counter filed by the second respondent also reveals that they have raised a point in respect of the maintainability of the petition under Section 163-A of the Act. In the present case, the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the first respondent and riding the same and sustained multiple injuries and died. Thus the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and therefore the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. The Tribunal has not considered the maintainability of the claim petition, however, proceeded on the basis of the accident occurred and accordingly has fixed the compensation.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the maintainability of the claim petition itself is raised or the liability is questioned, then the said point is to be decided by the Tribunal at the first instance. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that this claim petition cannot be entertained under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further there is no coverage in the policy as far as the rider of the vehicle is concerned.

5. 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, Hon'ble S.B. Sinha, J. was a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Case (2008) 5 SCC 736 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 67 that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under Section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163- A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Case (20