The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer cannot raise a defense of negligence in a claim proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Special Subordinate Judge for MCOP Cases, Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.1186 of 2014, dated 25.02.2016 as against the appellant and allow the appeal.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award, dated 25.02.2016, made in M.C.O.P.No.1186 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Subordinate Judge for MCOP Cases, Madurai.

2. The Appellant/Insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation at Rs.1,66,760/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the claimant, for the injury suffered by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 21.05.2014, challenged the liability mulcted on it.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 21.05.2014 at about 11.00 am, when he was traveling in a two wheeler bearing registration No. TN 20 AZ 7167 on Madurai to Trichy four way road, near Kunnankudipatti junction, he met with an accident with the car bearing registration No.TN 45 BY 0349 owned by the second respondent/first respondent, that the claimant had sustained serious injuries and that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver.

4. The defence of the appellant/insurer is that on 21.05.2014, at about 11.00 am, when the driver of the second respondent/first respondent's car was proceeding in a normal speed on the Madurai to Trichy four way track from north to south near Kunnankudipatti, the claimant, who came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner beyond the centre line, crossed the road and dashed against the car and caused the accident and that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant.

5. The appellant/insurer has also taken a specific stand that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally not maintainable.

6. During enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimant has examined himself and two other witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 respectively and exhibited five documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The second respondent/first respondent, who is the owner of the car bearing Registration No.TN-45-BY-0349 remained ex-parte. The Appellant/Insurer has examined three witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and exhibited four documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.

7. The learned Trial Judge has framed a specific point for determination as to whether the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, is maintainable and after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, is legally sustainable and passed the impugned award, dated 25.02.2016, mulcting the liability on the appellant/insurer and directing them to pay compensation of Rs.1,66,760/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer has come forward with the present appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the specific defence of the Appellant/Insurer that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the injured/claimant and that thereby, the Tribunal failed to follow the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Sinitha reported in 2012 (2) SCC 356.

9. The learned counsel for the Appellant would strongly contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claim for compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles can be defeated by the Insurance Company by pleading and establishing that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the offending vehicle, that the Tribunal has failed to apply the prevailing law of the land that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, is founded on the 'No Fault Liability' principle and that the decision of the Tribunal that the claim applicatio