IMPORTANT POINT
A borrower of a vehicle is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, nor under personal accident coverage unless specific conditions are met.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the award dated 26.11.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court) Mayiladuthurai.

Dissatisfied with the Award dated November 26, 2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2014 on the file of 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Mayiladuthurai' [henceforth 'Tribunal'], the appellant/second respondent has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

Petitioner's case

3. The case of the petitioner is that on October 15, 2013, at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner was travelling on a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-51-L-6890 belonging to the first respondent, in Malliyakollai Main Road in south to north direction. At that time, a Motorcycle coming from opposite direction collided with the petitioner's Motorcycle causing an accident, and fled the scene of occurrence. In the accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries as he was knocked off the bike. Immediately, the petitioner was rushed to Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai and thereafter, he was admitted as an in-patient in Tiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital where he took treatment for ten days. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital where he took treatment for another ten days. Due to the accident, the petitioner suffered fracture in his right leg toe, fracture in right hand fingers and multiple other injuries. Plastic surgery has also been performed on the petitioner. The petitioner incurred more than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as medical expenses. At the time of accident, the petitioner had completed B.E. Civil Engineering and was working as a Supervisor in a private construction company, thereby earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. A case in Crime No.504/2013 on the file of Manalmedu Police Station was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against an 'unidentified vehicle'. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

1st Respondent's case

4.The first respondent who is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-51-L-6890 did not contest the petition. He was called absent and set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

2nd Respondent's case

5.The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle. Instead, it was caused by the negligence, rashness and over speeding of the driver of an unknown two-wheeler. The petitioner possessed a valid driving license to drive the first respondent vehicle at the time of accident. When no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle, no compensation can be sought against the second respondent. Since the FIR was filed against the unknown vehicle, this respondent, who is the insurer of the petitioner travelled vehicle, is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the unknown vehicle. Accordingly, the second respondent – Insurance Company sought to dismiss the claim petition.

6.At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.9 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, one Mr.Stephen James Michael, Legal Officer attached to the second respondent – Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and the insurance policy was marked as Ex-R.1.

7.The Tribunal found that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is not maintainable as the petitioner is a borrower of the vehicle of the 1st respondent. Further found that the accident occurre