A borrower of a vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as they do not qualify as a third party entitled to benefits under this provision.

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 27.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court) at Villupuram, in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2016.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the dependants of the deceased/ claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs alleging that on 24.10.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., when the deceased Tamilvelan alias Velu was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 32 H 0450 in Trichy to Villupuram Road near T.V.S.Company, a cyclist suddenly crossed the road and inorder to avoid accident, the deceased applied brake, however, the motorcycle dashed against the bicycle, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,24,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit with costs and directed the appellant to deposit the amount.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that as per the policy the owner cum driver is entitled for claim under the personal accident coverage on three grounds, i.e., if the owner himself driven the vehicle; the owner cum driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured and the policy must stand in the name of the owner of the vehicle; and the owner of the vehicle must possess valid driving licence in accordance with the provisions of law.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that in the present case, the deceased himself is a tort feasor, he borrowed the vehicle from the fifth respondent and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and fell down and sustained fatal injuries and further submitted that the deceased is not the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the claimants are 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 ].

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants submitted that the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the fifth respondent and the deceased may have lost his life due to his negligence, even then, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under Section 163 A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal awarded compensation as per Schedule II of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT in terms of Section 163 A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , which is just and reasonable and the same warrants no interference.

6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7.The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. Admittedly, the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the fifth respondent. The issue that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the borrower of the vehicle is entitled for compensation in terms of Section 163 A and Schedule II of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

8.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 t