The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability to pay compensation under an Insurance Policy should be determined with reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the conditions stipulated in the policy, emphasizing the binding nature of contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and decree in MCOP.No.828 of 2013, dated 17.04.2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.828 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

2. M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited is the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation under the Statute.

3. The facts in nutshell to be considered is that the accident occurred on 04.10.2010 at about 2.30 p.m., at Veppanpalli to Kundarapalli Road. Gurubarapalli Police Station registered a case in Crime No.183/2010 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The deceased was proceeding in the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-24-E-0738 in order to reach his village. He sustained fatal injury and died on 07.10.2010. As per the Claim Petition, the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident and he was working as a Loadman in T.K.M.Saw Mill, Krishnagiri. His monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. The claimants filed the Claim Petition, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties and granted a total compensation of a sum of Rs.4,64,500/-. The appellant is held liable to pay compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the deceased is not covered under the Insurance Policy. The Claim Petition itself is not maintainable. The deceased was riding two wheeler belonging to one Mr.S.Perumal and the said two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-24-E-0738 was insured with the appellant/Insurance company. The deceased was riding the two wheeler in the extreme left side of the road and a dog suddenly crossed and the two wheeler dashed against the Electric Pole. On account of the sudden impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and to the Private Hospital at Bangalore and Coimbatore and died thereafter. The rider of the two wheeler had ridded the vehicle without the knowledge of the owner and therefore, he was not an authorized person. Thus, the appellant is not responsible to pay compensation. The deceased himself is the accused in the criminal case and the charge got abated due to the fact that he died. The deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence and the owner of the vehicle unauthorizedly permitted the deceased to ride the vehicle. Thus, it is violation of the policy and there is no liability on the part of the appellant/Insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Claim Petition itself was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the deceased cannot be treated as a third party and he stepped into the shoes of the owner and therefore, there is no coverage under the policy and consequently, the appellant/Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant opposed the contentions of the appellant by stating that the deceased was covered under the third party coverage and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in granting compensation to the claimants.

7. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal reveals that mother of the deceased/P.W.1. clearly deposed that the two wheeler was driven by the deceased on the date of accident. The two wheeler was insured with the 2nd respondent. Even as per the F.I.R., the accident occurred due to the sudden cross of the dog and the two wheeler dashed against the Electric pole, which resulted fatal injuries to the deceased and therefore, the clai