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 raise a defense of negligence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been laid as against the award and decree dated 16.11.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.447 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai, thereby awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,70,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 19.06.2005, when the deceased was driving a car from Sengadu to Chennai along GWT road nearing Valarpuram Village in a careful manner, the back tire of the car was suddenly burst and as a result, the deceased could not able to control the car and it went to the wrong side of the road and capsized. Therefore, the driver of the car sustained fatal injuries and died. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 163(a) of Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the vehicle and insurer of the vehicle seeking compensation at Rs.22,04,500/-.

4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating that the claim petition was filed under Section 163 (a) of Motor Vehicles Act and hence the annual income of the deceased cannot exceed Rs.40,000/- per month, whereas in the claim petition filed by the claimants stated that the income of the deceased at Rs.27,500/- per month. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The claim petition itself is not maintainable as the deceased is the tort feaser and the manner of accident would envisage that unless the vehicle was driven in a reckless manner and at high speed, the car would not have somersaulted twice. The deceased borrowed the car owned by the first respondent and while he was driving the car, the accident took place. Therefore, when the deceased steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, the claim petition is not maintainable under Section 163 (a) of MV Act, that too filed as against the owner of the vehicle and its insurer and as such sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the side of the respondents, they examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. On the basis of the evidence available on records and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal concluded that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy and as such it covers the deceased and awarded compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- payable by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent came forward with the present appeal questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased was being tort feaser, the claimants are not entitled to maintain claim petition under Section 163(a) of MV Act. That apart, the policy does not cover the driver of the vehicle and as such no contract of liability in question when the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the first respondent and caused accident and succumbed to the injuries. When it being so, the claimants cannot maintain the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle and insurer of the vehicle, that too under Section 163 (a) of MV Act. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:

(i) United India Insurance Company Vs. Rekha reported in 2017 (2) Tanmac 674

(ii) Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd and another reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC)

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the claim petition filed under Section 163(a) of MV Act. The second respondent is being insurer cannot raise any defence, since the claim under Section 163 (a) of MV Act provides for award of final compensation on a structured formula following provisions of second schedule appended to the Act.