JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kangayam.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award of the Tribunal dated 26.11.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kangayam.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kangayam. The respondents 1 to 3 and one M.Muthulakshmi filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one M.Kumar, who died in the accident that took place on 05.04.2012. Pending claim petition, the 4th claimant viz., M.Muthulakshmi died and the legal heirs of the 4th claimant were impleaded as respective parties in the claim petition as per the order dated 25.07.2018 made in I.A.No.280 of 2018.

3. According to respondents 1 to 3 and 4th claimant, on 05.04.2012 at about 04.00 a.m., while the said M.Kumar was driving the van bearing Registration No.TN 37 BR 1929 from East to West direction on the Kangayam to Coimbatore main road near Ramesh cars, he lost the control over the van, came to the southern edge of the road and dashed against the bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 8043, which was coming in the opposite direction in a great force and caused the accident. In the accident, the front portion of the van got badly damaged and the said M.Kumar sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the said M.Kumar was taken to Government Hospital at Kangayam by the people who gathered near the scene of accident. Thereafter he was taken to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment. Inspite of treatment given to the said M.Kumar, he succumbed to injuries on the same day. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 and one M.Muthulakshmi filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said M.Kumar against the respondents 4 to 6 and appellant-Insurance Company.

4. The respondents 4 and 5, being the owner of the van and driver of the bus belonging to 6th respondent-Transport Corporation remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the van belonging to 4th respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3 and 4th claimant. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 3 and 4th claimant. According to the appellant, the 5th respondent-driver of the bus belonging to 6th respondent-Transport Corporation only drove the bus without minding the van, which was coming in the opposite direction, suddenly came into the middle of the road in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident that happened as head on collision in the middle of the road. Further, the 5th respondent-driver of the bus was not possessing valid driving license to drive the bus at the time of accident. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 and 4th claimant are entitled to claim compensation only against the respondents 5 and 6. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the respondents 1 to 3 and 4th claimant is not maintainable as the said M.Kumar, driver of the van belonging to 4th respondent is a tort feasor and he is not a third party. The deceased being the driver of the van at the time of accident, steps into the shoes of owner of the said vehicle. The Criminal Case in Cr.No.230 of 2012 was registered only against the deceased and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 and 4th claimant are not entitled for any compensation. The deceased was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident and also there is no permit for the van belo