The Claims Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims by vehicle owners under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for personal accident coverage, as they do not qualify as third parties.

JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2020 passed in MCOP.No.404 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court of Subordinate Judge), at Sangagiri.

2. The following questions have been referred to us, as the learned Judge had entertained a doubt on account of two sets of conflicting judgments with regard to the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for claiming compensation for the injuries/death of the owner of the vehicle under Section 163A.

"1.Whether the owner/ insured is entitled to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing claim petition by invoking Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by relying on the personal accident coverage?

2. If the owner/insured is entitled to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him on the basis of personal accident cover, is he entitled to get compensation for the injuries which is not described in the schedule of injuries under Section 4 of The Personal Accident Cover or IMT15?"

3. In order to answer the reference, it would be apposite to briefly touch upon the facts of the case, which has given rise to this reference. The owner/insured of a vehicle had sustained injuries in a road accident that had taken place on 15.11.2012. For the injuries sustained by him on account of this accident, he has come forward to file a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by invoking Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against his own insurer.

4. The Insurance Company has questioned the very invocation of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by stating that the claimant cannot be treated as a third party to the accident, besides raising other defences. The Tribunal ultimately granted compensation of a sum of Rs.75,000/-, which is payable under the personal accident cover in the insurance policy.

5. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company had come forward with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Since the learned counsel had placed two sets of judgments, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the said issue has to be set at rest.

6. Though the issue is no longer res integra, in the light of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 550, however, since a doubt has been entertained by the learned single Judge in view of the conflicting judgments, which has led to this reference, we shall examine the contours of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, as it then stood and the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019 (Act32/19).

i) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, prior to its amendment:

7. Chapter XI of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, deals with insurance for motor vehicles against third party risks. The very title indicates that the Chapter deals with Insurance vis-a-vis third parties both to the vehicle as well as the contract of insurance. Section 145 therein deals with the definitions and Section 145 (g) defines 'third party' as 'includes the Government'. Section 146 deals with necessity for insurance against third party risk and Section 147 deals with the requirements of policies and the limits of liability. Section 163 talks about the Scheme for payment of compensation in cases of hit and run motor accident and Section 163(a) talk