Entitlement to compensation under Section 163-A requires the deceased to be a third party, and the claimant cannot maintain a claim if the deceased was the tort-feasor.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.124 of 2016 dated 23.03.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.

The Insurance Company is before this Court, challenging the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.124 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.

2. The petition has been filed by the respondents herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Manikandan under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident in which Manikandan has lost his life has occurred as follows:

The deceased Manikandan was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 54 Z 4208 in Imlikhedha Road, Madhya Pradesh and as he was proceeding near the Khartalai Bridge, Ulijhawan, Imlikheda, the deceased while taking a turn hit against the railing of a bridge and fell into the canal along with the motorcycle. In the fall, he had injured his head and became unconscious. He was admitted to a private hospital at Bhopal, where he died.

3. The claimants are the wife, minor son, father and brother of the deceased, Manikandan. The respondents 1 to 5 have claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the accident that had taken place in Madhya Pradesh and where First Information Report had been lodged at Madhya Pradesh, the claimants had moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Salem. It was also stated that the deceased was working as a driller under one Sellamuthu.

4. The Insurance Company has filed a counter denying the liability on the ground that the accident had happened only on account of the negligence of the deceased himself and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the loss.

5. The Tribunal below, however, proceeded to pass an award for a sum of Rs.6,83,673/- by order dated 23.03.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2016.

6. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.

7. The appeal has been filed on the ground that the claimants were not entitled to compensation since the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. They would contend that the Tribunal has over looked the fact that since the deceased was the tort-feasor and no extra premium had been collected from the owner of the vehicle he is not covered under the policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

8. Mrs.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company would placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. The United India Insurance Company and another reported in 2020 (2) SCC 550, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to make a claim under Section 163-A against the owner/insurer of the vehicle, the deceased has to be a third party and unless this fact is established, the claimants are not entitled to be compensated, since the provision is covered under no fault liability.

9. Per contra, Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants would submit that the deceased was an employee of the sixth respondent herein and therefore, the third party to the vehicle and he has been rightly compensated by the Insurance Company. He was also invoked the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act relating to the requirement of policy and limitation of the liability to state that the Insurance Company has to definitely cover the death or bodily injury to any person or damage to the property of a third party. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 12 SCC 395 in Shivaji and Another Vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, in support of his argument that in the case of Section 163-A petition, the Insurance Company cannot raise the issue of negligence. He also relied up