The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'third party' under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the eligibility for compensation based on the claimant's relationship to the vehicle owner and employment status.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1370 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge No.II, II Special Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Special Sub Judge No.II, II Special Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P. No.1370 of 2016.

2. Though the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed a common order, the other MCOP was considered and compensation was awarded. As far as the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in respect of Mr.Durairam is concerned, MCOP No.1370 of 2016 filed by him, seeking compensation, was dismissed. Thus, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant, namely, Mr.Durairam.

3. The accident occurred on 25.12.2015 at about 01.30 A.M. in Perundurai-Erode Main Road, Mettukadai, Opposite to Sri Venkateshwara Rice Mill. The Erode Taluk Police Station registered a case in Crime No.483 of 2015 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. The appellant Mr.Durairam was driving the Tata Nano Car bearing Registration No.TN-90-A-1821. The other person Mr.Rathinam was travelling along with the appellant in the front side of the car. Suddenly, a dog jumped into the Main Road and the appellant turned the car in the right side, lost control and dashed in the Centre Divider Lane, resulted in an accident. The appellant and the other passenger were sustained serious injuries.

4. The appellant, at the time of accident, was 36 years old and his father is the owner of the car. The appellant/injured was working as an Assistant Professor in a Private Engineering College and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/-. Thus, the claim petitions were filed separately by the appellant as well as by the other passenger, seeking compensation.

5. The second respondent/Insurance Company defended the case by stating that the appellant, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, is the son of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, he is not entitled to claim compensation as he is not a third party. This apart, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also not maintainable in view of the fact that at the time of accident, the appellant was working as Assistant Professor in a Private Engineering College and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/-. For these two reasons, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties. The manner of accident and the probabilities were also examined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the appellant/driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident. Thus, the negligence was fixed on the appellant, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

7. As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considered the issues with reference to MCOP No.1370 of 2016. The Tribunal has considered the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. As per Second Schedule, if the annual income of the claimant is below Rs.40,000/-, then only the claim petition is entertainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not otherwise.

8. In the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as per the self-evidence of the appellant, he was working as Assistant Professor in a Private Engineering College and was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- as monthly salary. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This apart, it was established before the Tribunal that