JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2013 dated 01.03.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi.

2. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondent herein is the respondent in the claim petition. The appellant has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2013, claiming compensation for the damages caused to the petitioner's vehicle, in an accident that took place on 18.09.2011. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2013 is as follows:

On 18.09.2011, the car of the petitioner Hyundai I20 bearing registration No.TN-7-J-8989 was involved in an accident and was damaged. The vehicle was insured with respondent. The vehicle was surveyed and the surveyor report was sent to the respondent. The petitioner approached the respondent with all the particulars. But the respondent failed to pay the compensation. Notice was sent to the respondent on 10.05.2012 and then on 15.05.2012, an email was sent to the respondent. The insurance policy is a package policy and the respondent is liable to pay Rs.6,62,872/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) with interest.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent therein is as follows:

This Court has no jurisdiction to enquire the case. The respondent is liable to pay compensation only to third parties. The petitioner is not a third party. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner's driver. The report regarding the damages was received by the respondent. Since the petitioner failed to give consent letter, his claim petition was closed. The compensation claimed is excessive.

5. One witnesses was examined and 12 documents were marked, on the side of the petitioner. One witness was examined and one document was marked, on the side of the respondent. After trial, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the insurance company is liable to pay for the damages to the vehicle. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the jurisdiction is not correct. There is no necessity for the appellant to approach the consumer forum. The invoice given by the owner of the Motor Company Susee Hyundai was marked as Ex.A12. But even then, the respondent failed to pay the compensation and this fact was not considered by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2017 5 CTC 1 is cited, wherein this Court has analyzed Section 167 of MV Act. The Tribunal failed to consider the same.

7. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the facts of the case in the judgment cited above is not applicable to the present facts of the case. The claimant mentioned in the above judgment has initially filed a claim petition before the Employees Compensation Act and the same was dismissed and thereafter, a claim petition under the MV Act was filed and the Tribunal has directed the insurance company to pay the compensation. The present case is filed against the insurance company for the damages caused to the vehicle and the above cited judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.

8. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the claim made by the owner of the vehicle against the insurer is not maintainable, since he has not suffered any legal liability to be indemnified by the insurance company. In support of his contention, the judgment passed by this Court in the case of the