The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claimant, as a borrower of a vehicle, cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and Insurer of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

On 22.3.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., while the petitioner was riding the first respondent's motorcycle bearing registration No.PY-01-AF-4083 at extreme left side of the Virudhachalam – Cuddalore main road, near T.Chathiram bridge, a man suddenly crossed the road. The petitioner tried to avoid the accident but due to the sudden cross of the man, he could not avoid the accident. The motorcycle hit against the man, thereby caused accident, resulting in the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. The petitioner has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein being the insurer and owner of the insured vehicle.

2. On the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 & 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P-9 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to R3 were marked.

3. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, held that the petitioner proved that he met with an accident and only in the accident he had sustained injuries. The appellant being the insurer of the vehicle, liable to pay compensation and awarded Rs.1,62,460/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The award passed by the tribunal under various heads are as follows:

4. Challenging the award passed by the tribunal fastening liability against the appellant/Insurance Company, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that due to negligence on the part of the petitioner, the accident occurred and therefore, claimant being a tort-feaser cannot claim compensation from the appellant and in the F.I.R., the claimant was shown as accused. Further, there is no independent witness examined before the tribunal.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant and perused the materials available on record.

6. The short point involved in the present appeal is that whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant or not.

7. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company, Ex.R3 charge sheet shows that the claimant was accused for causing accident. There is no other independent evidence before the tribunal to prove the cause of accident. The claimant who borrowed the vehicle, driven himself and met with an accident. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAMKHILADI AND ANOTHER VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [2020 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC)], to contend that when the claimant borrowed the vehicle from the owner, he entered into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, thus, he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Act, against the owner and Insurer of the vehicle. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit that the tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence, has held that there is no evidence to show that the claimant who ride the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident and the tribunal has clearly held that the claimant who sustained injuries in the accident held as stated supra. The petitioner marked personal accident policy as Ex.P3. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal.

9. On perusal of the materials available on record, on facts, the respon