An owner/injured person cannot file a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer, as they do not qualify as a third party.

JUDGMENT :

L.Victoria Gowri, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order made in M.C.O.P.No.913 of 2020 dated 06.10.2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge No.II, Thiruchirappalli.

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

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

(i) The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the second is the insurance company with which the vehicle involved was insured. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased Mohamed Thoufeek, who was 21 years old at the time of the accident.

(ii) On 21.10.2019 at about 8:30 a.m., while the deceased was riding his two-wheeler motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-06-8571 from his residence to his college, while traveling along the Lakshmipuram Akash Marble another two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-56-E-5726 which was travelling in front of him suddenly swerved vehicle to the right side. As a result of which the deceased collided with the said two-wheelers, fell down, sustained severe head injuries, and died on the way to hospital on the same day.

(iii) Seeking compensation for the death of their son, the petitioners have laid the claim petition before the Tribunal against the insurance company, as the motorcycle involved was owned by the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased.

(iv) The Tribunal examined two witnesses on the side of the petitioners, and marked P.W.1 and P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and one document was marked as Ex.R.1 was marked. The final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Trichy, was marked as a third party document Ex.X.1.

(v) On the basis of arguments made by both parties, the evidence deposed and the documents marked, the Tribunalpartly allowed the MCOP by awarding a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the lis in hand is covered by the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.1395 of 2021, dated 19.08.2024. The deceased was the rider of the motor vehicle involved in the accident on the fateful day. The said motorcyle was owned by his father. The nature of the accident is that the death of the deceased happened because of the collusion between the motorcycle driven by the deceased and another motorcycle. Having not impleaded the insurance company with which the other motorcycle involved in the accident as respondent in the motor claims original petition, the petitioners have preferred to proceed against the insurance company with which the motorcycle driven by the deceased was insured. Since the deceased had used his father's vehicle and had stepped into the shoes of his father while riding the said vehicle, he would be considered as the owner. Therefore, he cannot lay a motor accident claim before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 and accordingly, the learned Counsel pressed for allowing the appeal.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had properly adjudicated the case on the basis of evidence and documents on record and therefore, the same need not be interfered.

6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and carefully perus