The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not required to plead or establish the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the vehicle or any other person. The judgment also emphasizes the difference between the provisions of Section 163A and Section 140, and the eligibility criteria for compensation under each section.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.04.2012 in M.C.O.P.No.1907 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/17th Additional Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai.)

1. Appeal by the dependants of the motor accident victim, for enhancement of compensation, being unsatisfied with the quantum of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

2. As per the claim petition, on 26/03/2008 around 4.30 p.m, Mr.Harikrishnan while riding along Pallikaranai Road, in his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 07-AH-7115, near Kamachi Hospital, the driver of the stationed bus bearing registration No.TN-22- AT 8291 negligently without noticing the motorcycle, suddenly moved and hit the left side of the motorcycle. The motorcycle rider Harikrishnan was thrown away and fell on the road. He sustained grievous injury and taken to hospital. First Aid treatment was given at Kamachi Hospital. For further treatment, he was taken to Government General Hospital, Chennai. He was admitted as inpatient on 26/03/2008. At the hospital not responding to the treatment he died on 31/03/2008. The claimants, contending that the deceased was earning Rs.3,300/-pm as Supervisor at Hotel Picnic and as parent, they were depending on his income. Hence, Rs.8,00,000/- was sought as compensation against the bus owner and the insurer of the bus.

3. The bus owner remained exparte. The insurance company contested the claim obtaining leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It filed counter wherein contended that the bus bearing registration No. TN 22 AT 8291 insured with them not responsible for the said accident. The accident did not occur as narrated in the claim petition. In fact, the deceased drove his motorcycle rash and negligently, dashed against the stationed bus and sustained injury. The motorcyclist was the cause for the alleged accident. The claimants are put to strict proof of the age, income and dependency.

4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claim petitioners, two witnesses were examined. 7 documents were marked. On behalf of the respondents, one witness and two documents were marked.

5. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence placed before it, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the victim Harikrishnan. He being the tort-feasor, the claim petition by the parent of the deceased Harikrishnan under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not sustainable. However, held, they are entitled for compensation under “No fault liability clause” (Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act). Therefore, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with 7.5% interest payable from the date of petition (21/04/2008) till the date of deposit.

6. The said award is challenged in this appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence placed before it in proper perspective. It erred in relying upon the First Information Report against the deceased victim to hold that the deceased is the tort feasor. The testimony of the claimant(PW-1)and the eye witness (PW-2) were not given due consideration. The precedent laid by the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court were ignored.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before this Court that the Tribunal failed to consider the facts of the case and the spirit behind the provision of law. The petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the victim annual income was less than Rs.40,000/-, the claimants thought fit in their wisdom it is suffice to seek compensation on the basis of structured formula given under the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act without requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver involved in the accident.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following judgments

1) United India Insurance Company -vs- Sunil Kumar and