The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of personal accident coverage under the insurance policy and the liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree, dated 06.10.2016, passed in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur insofar as liability is concerned.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award, dated 06.10.2016, passed in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. The appellant herein is the third respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2011, is as follows:

On 10.04.2009, at about 04.00 a.m, when the first respondent was driving a mini Van bearing Registration No.TN-48-AL-4172, the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle as a load man, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle capsized. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was admitted in Trichy Government Hospital and he took treatment as inpatient from 10.04.2009 till 21.04.2009 and then, he was admitted as inpatient in Thanjavur Government Hospital from 29.10.2009 till 15.01.2010, he sustained permanent disability and the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2011 is as follows:

The first respondent did not have a driving licence. The petitioner has travelled in the vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. The age, income, profession are all denied. The claim is excessive.

4. Brief substance of the additional counter filed by the third respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2011, is as follows:

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, he was impleaded as the second respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner has falsely mentioned himself as the load man and cleaner in the complaint and in the F.I.R and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

5. On the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 1 witness was examined and 1 document was marked. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation.

6. Against the order, the appellant/ Insurance Company has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal has failed to consider that the claimant and the third respondent herein are one and the same person. The claimant is the insurer of the appellant. The claimant was travelling in the vehicle as the owner of the vehicle, he cannot be named as a third party. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the petition was filed both under Section 163(A) and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was not maintainable. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the owner of the vehicle. The personal accident coverage is valid only when the owner drive the vehicle at the time of accident. In this case, the claimant was travelling only as a passenger and he is not entitled to any compensation.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the claimant and the owner of the vehicle is one and the same. The vehicle is a TATA Ace goods vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was sitting along the driver of the vehicle. The owner cannot claim compensation from his own Insurance Company. Pleadings of the owner that he was travelling as a load man is not maintainable.

8. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018-2- TNMAC-286 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Ashalata Bhowmik and others] is cited by the appellant counsel, wherein, it is stated as follows:-

“The deceased was not a third party, but, he was the owner cum driver of the vehicle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself