The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove negligence against the driver for imposing liability under the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 16.07.201 made in M.C.O.P.No.1251 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award and decree dated 16.07.201 made in M.C.O.P.No.1251 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the claim petition for the sake of convenience.

3. The deceased was aged 26 years and as a Programmer in ETI India, Chennai was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the father and the third respondent, the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 26.11.2006 at about 01.00 a.m., while the deceased was driving the 1st respondent''s car bearing Registration No.TN- 05-B-0666 from East to West direction on Cuddalore (Palur) Panruti Main Road, Thirumanikuzhi, a pedestrian suddenly crossed the road and in order to avoid the accident the deceased swerved the vehicle and hit a tamarind tree. Due to impact the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants therefore filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The first and the third respondent is the mother of the deceased. The first respondent, the mother of the deceased was the owner of the car, which was driven by the deceased at the time of the accident. She filed a counter stating that as the vehicle had a valid insurance policy and all the conditions of the policy were satisfied the liability was that of the second respondent insurance company.

5. The second respondent insurance company filed its counter denying the negligence, quantum and liability. The second respondent insurance company further stated that the mother of the deceased who was arrayed as first and third respondent in the claim petition was not entitled for compensation for the death of her son, who died while driving the car belonging to her. According to the Insurance Company, the deceased was not a third party and further as the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable.

6. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and one eye-witness as PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, in support of the claim. On the side of the second respondent one witness was examined and one document was marked.

7. The Claims Tribunal on an assessment of the entire evidence on record held that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the deceased and awarded the compensation of Rs.15,42,000/- along with 8% interest and mulcted the liability on the second respondent insurance company on the basis of the policy marked as Ex.R1. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has preferred the above appeal, challenging the finding on negligence and also the liability.

8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant as the deceased himself was the tortfeaser the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the Claims Tribunal failed to note that even under the Policy, Ex.R1 the Insurance Company could not be mulcted with the liability as the deceased was neither the owner nor an authorised driver. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on few Judgments in support of his submissions and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

9. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal had given cogent reasons for it''s finding on negligence and liability and therefore there was no scope for any interference in the appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that if this Court should find against the claimants on negligence then the claimant