IMPORTANT POINT
A borrower of a vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as they step into the shoes of the owner and are not considered a third party.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 23.12.2021 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2076 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District & Sessions Judge), Cuddalore.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Award dated 23.12.2021 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2076 of 2017 on the file of the ‘Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District and Sessions Judge), Cuddalore’ [henceforth 'Tribunal']. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will henceforth be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

Petitioners’ case:-

3. The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd petitioner is the son and the 3rd petitioner is the mother of the deceased - Murugan. The case of the petitioners is that on 02.01.2017 at about 15.00 hours, the deceased - Murugan was riding the 1st respondent's Hero Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-31-BD-9299 from East to West, at a moderate speed, keeping extreme left on Kullanchavadi to Alapakkam Road. While approaching Venkatammalpuram Bus Stop, the deceased swerved his vehicle to give way for another vehicle. In this process, the motorcycle unavoidably hit a TVS Super Heavy Duty moped bearing Registration No. TN-31-AA-9351 coming from West to East, leading to an accident in which the deceased - Murugan sustained fatal injuries. He was rushed to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore and then treated in Jipmer Hospital, Puducherry. Despite medical treatment, he passed away on 07.01.2017. Before the accident, the deceased was engaged in Tender Coconut Business and thereby, he earned a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioners filed claim petition on the basis of no-fault liability under Section 163-A of ‘the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988’ (‘M.V. Act’ for short), praying to pass an award for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the petitioners against the respondents and for the award of cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.

1st respondent's case:-

4.The 1st respondent did not choose to contest the Original Petition. Hence, he was called absent and set exparte before the Tribunal.

2nd respondent's case:-

5.The 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the 1st respondent's motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-31-BD-9299, filed a counter stating that the accident occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased - Murugan. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against one Gunasundary, wife of Sekar in Crime No. 5 of 2017 and after investigation, the Police referred and closed the case as 'mistake of fact' in R.C.S. No. 4 of 2017. The deceased - Murugan, being a tortfeasor, is not entitled to claim compensation from the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the original petition.

Witnesses and documents:-

6.At trial, the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Thiru. Selvaraj was examined as P.W.2 and Exs-P.1 to P.8 were marked on the side of the petitioners. Neither any witness was examined, nor any document was marked on the side of the respondents.

Findings of the Tribunal:-

7.The Tribunal found that the case of the petitioners was proved and that the deceased - Murugan died only due to the road accident that occurred on 02.01.2017 at about 15.00 hours. Further that the 1st respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-31-BD-9299, was insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident and hence, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners based on the principle of no-fault liability under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,24,800/- as compensation payable to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent.

8. Feeling aggrieved with the said Award of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent – Insurance Com