A vehicle owner cannot claim third-party insurance from their own insurer, limiting compensation to personal accident coverage when involved in an accident.

JUDGEMENT :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the tribunal in the above M.C.O.P.No.919 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge) at Salem dated 13.02.2018.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 15.09.2012 at about 10.50 am.,when the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 30 J 9347 along with his brother-in-law namely Sakthivel / pillion rider, at that time a car bearing registration No.TN 38 BM 9420 belonging to the first respondent being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner suddenly applied brake and due to the said act, the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle had fallen down and the rider sustained severe head injuries on head resulting in his death on 17.09.2012, even after taking treatment in the hospital. Claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed a claim petition.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.24. The Respondents examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Ex.R1. After considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.13,82,120/- in favour of the claimants and the mother of the deceased. Challenging the same, the fourth respondent / insurer of the deceased vehicle is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / insurer of the deceased vehicle submits that though the said accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, however, the Tribunal fastened 25% negligence as against the appellant / insurer of the deceased vehicle which is per se unsustainable. Though the deceased is the owner cum occupant of the motor cycle and he is not coming under the third party and only personal accident coverage of Rs.1 lakh can be awarded for his death. However, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.13,82,120/- and fixed 75% - 25% negligence on the driver of the 6^th respondent's car and the deceased, which is not sustainable.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants 1 to 5 / respondents 1 to 5 submits that though the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and the F.I.R. has been registered as against the driver of the 6^th respondent's car, the Tribunal has fastened 25% negligence as against the deceased which is per se unsustainable. Hence, this Court may fix the entire negligence as against the driver and insurer of the car and pass appropriate orders.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent / insurer of the 6^th respondent's car submits that while the driver of the 6^th respondent's car was proceeding in national highways, the deceased who had driven the motor cycle hit the 6^th respondent's car and sustained fatal injuries and lost his life. Though, it is clear from the deposition of R.W.2 that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle the said accident had happened, however without considering the said facts the Tribunal has fastened 75% negligence as against the 7^th respondent / insurer of the 6^th respondent's car which is per se unsustainable.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

8. The major grievance of the appellant is that the deceased is the owner of the motor cycle, who was an occupant at the time of accident and he is not entitled to claim third party insura