The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of insurance coverage for personal injury to the owner of the vehicle under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree made in MACT.OP.No.147 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Judge) at Gobichettipalayam, dated 20.12.2019.

Heard Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.SP.Yuvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Judge) at Gobichettipalayam, in MCOP.No.147 of 2017.

3. The facts in brief:

(i) The respondent/Radhadevi is the mother of the deceased Shri Sudarshan, who died in the accident on 05.06.2016. According to her, her deceased son was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-36- AD-1010 from Hasanur to Arapalayam and about 05.30 p.m., when he was on Mysore-Sathyamangalam Main Road near Arapalayam, he applied break to stop the vehicle, but due to heavy rain, the vehicle fell down and he sustained injuries and died on the spot.

(ii) It is further stated that the pillion rider of the two wheeler Santhosh suffered injuries. The deceased was a student of Presidency College and he was studying second year BA (Political Science), hence, she is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant/Insurance Company, stating that the deceased himself was the tort-feasor, hence, his mother is not entitled to maintain the claim petition. However, the Tribunal having held that the accident is inevitable, directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.23,53,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum.

5. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the insured himself had caused the accident and as per the policy condition, the legal heirs are not entitled for compensation as against the insurer. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhanraj vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in 2004 (2) TNMAC 144 (SC).

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue that in the connected claim petition, it has been stated in the counter that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the deceased Shri Sudarshan. The appellant takes inconsistent plea. Further, the motor accident claim itself is a beneficial legislation, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

8. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the deceased Shri Sudarshan was the owner of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-36-AD-1010 and when he was riding the motorcycle, he met with an accident on 05.06.2016 and died instantly. Perusal of the pleadings shows that the deceased was negligent at the time of the accident.

9. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held as follows:

"7. We have seen the Policy. It is a comprehensive policy. The question that arises is whether a comprehensive Policy would cover the risk of injury to the owner of the vehicle also. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:-

"147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; or

(b) insurer the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or