The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the owner himself is involved in the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 05.02.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Kuzhithalai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment dated 05.02.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Kuzhithalai, by the appellant / Insurance Company / respondent challenging the liability as well as the quantum of the award.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(i) This is a fatal case. On 17.11.2012, the deceased Jagadeesh was riding motorcycle bearing Engine No: 0E4AC2023284 and the Chasis No: MD634KE41C2A34610 from west to east in Karur to Trichy East-West NH67 main road. While the deceased reached near Sithalavai bus staop at about 11 P.M., dashed against one Hemanthkumar who was coming in the opposite direction and fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous multiple injuries on head and all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted at G.C.Hospital, Karur for first aid and he was taken to Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Ltd., Coimbatore for further treatment where he died on 19.11.2012.

(ii) Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2013 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Kuzhithalai for the loss of life of deceased Jagadeesh. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company in which the said vehicle was insured.

(iii) The 2nd respondent had filed a counter refuting the allegations put forth in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent pleaded in the counter that the rider deceased Jagadeesh without possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident had lost his control over the bike and has fallen from the bike. As a result of which, he succumbed to grievous injuries and later he died after two days. That apart, the 2nd respondent further pleaded that the deceased Jagadeesh drove the unregistered bike on the date of the accident and it amounts to violation of the principles of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also denied the insurance policy of the alleged TVS Apache bike.

(iii) Four issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. Following which one witness was examined and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 were marked on the side of the petitioners. One witness was examined and Ex.R.W-1 was marked on the side of the respondents.

(iii) On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments submitted by the respective parties before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal had proceeded to conclude that it was only the deceased Jagadeesh who was responsible for his death and the same was decided on the basis of the FIR which is marked as Ex.P-1. The father of the deceased i.e., one of the claimant died during the pendency of the Motor Accident original claim petition before the Tribunal. On the basis of the legal heir certificate which is marked as Ex.P-9, it reveals that the 1st petitioner is the mother of the deceased and she depended on the income of the deceased. Despite the deceased was being the tortfeasor of his death, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A & 165 on the basis of no fault theory, the learned Tribunal proceeded to conclude that the 1st petitioner was entitled to get the compensation for the loss of life of his son deceased Jagadeesh. In furtherance to the same, the learned Tribunal observed that the 1st respondent owner had remained exparte before the Tribunal and he had allowed the deceased Jag