The main legal point established in the judgment is that to claim compensation under 'No Fault Liability' (Section 163A), the victim must be an innocent bystander, and the accident must occur without the victim's fault. The victim must establish third party involvement in the mishap to claim compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 01.09.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.)

The Insurance Company who was the 2nd respondent before the Claims Tribunal is the appellant before this Court. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant before the Claims Tribunal and the 2nd respondent herein who is the owner of the vehicle was arrayed as the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent is the father of the 2nd respondent herein. The issue that arises for the consideration of this Court is the liability of the appellant Insurance Company to compensate the injuries suffered by the 1st respondent while using the motor vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent and which was insured with the appellant Company.

Facts of the case:

2. In order to appreciate the above issue, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the facts that have culminated in filing of the appeal as follows:

(i) Claimant's case:

3. It is the case of the 1st respondent that on 08.10.2014, while he was driving the Car bearing Registration No.TN 24R 1666, belonging to the 2nd respondent, he lost control and hit a tamarind tree. The impact caused grievous injuries to him. The 1st respondent suffered a left leg knee joint fracture, left hip joint fracture, pelvic bone fracture, head injury and injuries all over the body (as stated in the claim petition).

4. The scene of accident as narrated by the 1st respondent in Column No.23 of the claim petition is as follows:

“The petitioner submits that on 08.10.2014 at about 07.30am, the petitioner was going from Bargur to Mathur Village on business work in the car bearing Registration No.TN 24R 1666 on the left side of the road with due care and caution and by observing the traffic rules. The petitioner submits that while he was going from Bargur to Athiganoor Village on Mathur to Bargur road near Perumalkuppam Village one Nadar Kottai due to the bad conditions of the road, the Car had lost its control and dashed against a tamarind tree. Hence, the petitioner had sustained fractures of left leg knee joint, left hip joint fracture, pelvic bone fracture and injuries on head, left leg, left hip, and injuries all over the body. Hence, the petitioner was immediately taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Krishnagiri and then to MIOT Hospitals, Chennai for higher treatment.”

Therefore, the 1st respondent had filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Counter of the Insurance Company:

5. The 1st respondent had remained ex parte and the appellant Insurance Company had taken out a preliminary objection stating that the 1st respondent, who was the driver on wheels of the insured vehicle, at the time of the accident, is none other than the father of the insured and considering the fact that he was the driver of the insured vehicle, he steps into the shoes of the owner. Further, the he was not entitled to claim compensation as a third party.

6. The appellant had stated that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, they are liable to indemnify the insurance risk only against the third party risk. The 1st respondent being the owner, had himself caused the accident, therefore, the question of indemnifying him would not arise. Apart from the preliminary objection, the appellant had also questioned the claim on merits. They had questioned the amount of compensation that has been claimed and stated that the same is an exorbitant claim. The appellant herein had also put the 1st respondent to strict proof of the fact that the 1st respondent possessed a valid driving license. The claim that the 1st respondent is the only breadwinner of the family, etc., had been denied.

7. That apart, the appellant had also contended that the 1st respondent had himself made a statement