The main legal point established in the judgment is that claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act need not plead or prove negligence, and the structured formula for compensation must be followed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in C.M.A.No.739 of 2014: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.4601 of 2010 on 10.01.2013 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court -II Judge) at Chennai.

C.M.A.No.874 of 2015: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.4601 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court) at Chennai.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. These two appeals arising from the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.4601 of 2010. The claim petition is filed under Section 163 - A of Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant Mr. G. Saravanan was considered by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of numbering the petition till the date of deposit was ordered.

2. Having found that the driver of the offending vehicle had no license to drive, the Tribunal ordered the Insurance Company who is the 2nd respondent to pay and recover the same from the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company being aggrieved on the liability been wrongly fixed against them and the quantum arrived is disproportionately high, had preferred the C.M.A.No.739 of 2014. Whereas, not satisfied with the award amount, the claimant has preferred the C.M.A.No.874 of 2015 for enhancement.

3. As per the claim petition, on 20.08.2010, at about 13.30 hours, when the petitioner as pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-BX-8824 at Medavakkam Main Road, near Syndicate Bank ATM, Keezhkattalai, Chennai, an unknown Auto hit against the motorcycle. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injury. The complaint in this case was lodged by the claimant. As per the complaint which is marked as Ex.P.1, the claimant was travelling on the pillion in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-BX-8824, the vehicle was driven by his relative Thiru.Manikandan. At that time, on the opposite direction an auto came rash and negligently hit the motorcycle.

4. The case of the claimant is that though the negligence is attributable to the auto driver, the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act without refers to negligence. Being a third party, he is entitled for compensation as per the provisions under Section 163-A. Whereas, the Insurance Company has contested the claim petition on the ground that the 1st respondent motorcycle is no way connected with the alleged accident. Belated F.I.R. being given by the claimant to get compensation. The inconsistency in the claimant’s case renders the claim petition unsustainable.

5. Pointing that, in the claim petition, the rider of the motorcycle is mentioned as G. Angamuthu. Whereas, in the complaint given by the claimant it is stated that Thiru.Manikandan, as the rider of the motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle had no driving licence hence the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insurer.

6. The Tribunal, on considering the rival submissions has award a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- as per the following table:-

7. The Learned Counsel for the insurer contended that the offending vehicle is an unknown auto. The rider of the motorcycle which is insured under the Appellant Company was in fact one Manikandan. Whereas, in the claim petition, it is mentioned as Mr. Angamuthu, who is actually the owner