A borrower of a vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as they do not qualify as a third party.

JUDGMENT :

M.Dhandapani, J.

The second respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2 at Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.678 of 2017.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first respondent filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.12 Lakhs alleging that on 17.01.2017 at about 9.00 p.m., when the first respondent was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 30 BD 9932 along with his uncle's son as pillion rider near Fairlands Venkatachalapathy Temple, a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 30 AX 4268 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler driven by the first respondent, due to which, he sustained injuries. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization with costs and directed the appellant to deposit the amount.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the claimant filed claim petition without impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, the first respondent is a tort feasor, he borrowed the vehicle from the second respondent and further submitted that it is a case of injury and further submitted that the claimant is not a third party and hence the claimant is not entitled to file claim petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 593 [ National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rani and others ]

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Though the name of the second respondent has been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the second respondent. Considering the pendancy of the civil miscellaneous appeal, this Court is inclined to proceed with the case and decide the same based on the materials available on record.

5.The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. Admittedly, the first respondent borrowed the vehicle insured with the appellant and he has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle as party in the claim petition. 6.The issued involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 593 [ National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rani and others ], the relevant portion of the same reads as follows:

“9. The recent Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Another [2020 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC)], elaborately discussed the scope of claim petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Undoubtedly, the Special Provision cannot be read in isolation and the Apex Court considered Sections 147, 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus the Special Provision is to be read conjointly and in consonance with the object, purpose as well as the intention of the Legislature.

10. In the event of interpreting any Special Provision in isolation to the other provisions of the Statute, then the very object would be defeated and therefore, the Courts cannot make an interpretation of a Special Provision, which is otherwise intended to grant certain benefits in respect of grant of compensation in the event of not establishing negligence. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that, even the Personal Accident Coverage cannot be considered in certain cases, where the victim is not the registered owner of the vehicle. Three conditions are required even under Personal Accident Policy (which is not a statutory coverage in terms of Section 14