Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shanthi and Others – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 2332 of 2019, C.M.P. No. 10580 of 2019
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 163-A - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT] - [Section 163-A] - The court held that the legal heirs of the tort-feasor are not entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant-Insurance Company, insurer of the Motorcycle, as deceased was riding the Motorcycle belonging to the 1st claimant/1st respondent insured with the appellant and respondents cannot maintain the claim petition against insurer of the Motorcycle. The Tribunal erred in fixing the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- and entertained the claim petition. Further, the Tribunal without following the structural formula in II Schedule of the Act, awarded compensation under various heads, contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2004 (1) TN MAC (SC) 193, referred to above.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was riding a motorcycle belonging to the 1st claimant and insured with the appellant. The claimants filed a compensation claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant as the insurer of the motorcycle. The appellant denied liability, stating that the deceased was a tort-feasor and the claim petition was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the legal heirs of the tort-feasor are not entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant-Insurance Company. The Tribunal erred in fixing the annual income of the deceased and awarding compensation under various heads.
Issues: 1. Entitlement of legal heirs to maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the motorcycle. 2. Determination of annual income for claim petition under Section 163-A.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal heirs of the tort-feasor are not entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the motorcycle. The Tribunal erred in fixing the annual income of the deceased and awarding compensation under various heads.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, and the award of the Tribunal is set aside. The appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 274 of 2015, if the award amount has already been deposited by them. If the respondents 1 to 4 have already withdrawn the award amount, the appellant-Insurance Company is not entitled to recover the same from the respondent 1 to 4. No costs.
JUDGMENT :
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017, made in M.C.O.P. No. 274 of 2015, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode.
The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing.”
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017, made in M.C.O.P. No. 274 of 2015, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode.
2. The appellant is the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 274 of 2015, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode. The respondents 1 to 3/ claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S. Ramesh, who died in the accident that took place on 17.11.2013.
3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, on the date of accident, the deceased was riding the Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-33-BC-3189 belonging to the 1st respondent, along with his two daughters viz. respondents 2 and 3 on the Erode to Perundurai main road from East to West direction. While nearing City Union Bank ATM near HP Petrol Bunk, a rider of the unknown Two Wheeler coming from behind rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to overtake the Motorcycle rode by the deceased, lost control and dashed on the vehicle ridden by the deceased from behind and caused the accident. Due to the sudden impact, the deceased was thrown from his bike and landed on the median in the middle of the road and sustained head injuries and died on 18.11.2013. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the unknown Two Wheeler who rushed away from the scene. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle. The mother of the deceased was arrayed as 2nd respondent in the claim petition.
4. The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the policy issued for the Motorcycle belonging to the 1st respondent is an Act Policy to cover third party risks and the owner of the vehicle cannot maintain claim application against the insurer. In the said policy, the Insurance Company is entitled to indemnify the loss sustained to the owner/1st respondent. The owner of the vehicle is only entitled to claim compensation under contractual liability and not under Act Policy. By riding the vehicle, the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner and hence, the legal heirs of the deceased cannot claim compensation. Another vehicle had hit from behind the Motorcycle ridden by the deceased and in the case of hit and run, the claimants cannot maintain claim petition against the insurer of the Motorcycle rode by the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The 4th respondent, mother of the deceased, filed counter statement and contended that she is entitled for 1/4th of the compensation to be awarded to the respondents 1 to 3.
6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as PW-1, examined eye witness as PW-2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The appellant examined their Official as RW-1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the accident that occurred while using the Motorcycle belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs. 3,56,210/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.
8. Challenging the liability fastened on them and questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 30.11.2017, made in M.C.O.P. No. 274 of 2015, the appellant-Insurance Company has co
Legal heirs of the tort-feasor are not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the motorcycle.
The legal heirs of the deceased, as the tort-feasor, were not entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant-Insurance Company.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 163(a) of the MV Act, including the maintainability of claim petitions and the insurer's ability to r....
A borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner, disqualifying their legal heirs from claiming compensation against the insurance company.
A borrower of a vehicle is not considered a third party under the insurance policy, and the insurance company's liability is limited to the terms of the contract.
Point of law: liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the owner himself is involved in the accident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle, could not be considered a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the cla....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the M.V. Act, the liability of the insurance company depends on the interpretation of the provisions regarding third-party claims, an....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
