Legal representatives of a deceased driver cannot claim third-party compensation for a self-driving accident. However, they are entitled to receive compensation if the vehicle's insurance policy specifically includes personal accident coverage for the owner-cum-driver, based on the contractual obligations of the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 9th October, 2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, in MACP no.602 of 2006. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, holding that the deceased himself, being a tortfeasor, was not entitled to claim compensation for his own wrong, in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of original claimant.

2. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants and the grounds raised in the appeal memo, this Court vide order dated 12th February, 2015 had admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings were called for. The notice of admission of appeal was waived by the learned advocate on record for respondent no.2 - the insurance company. The notice of admission of appeal is reported to have been duly served upon respondent no.1 - the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, however, has chosen not to contest the present appeal.

3. Subsequently, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta learned advocate, with Mr. Rushang D. Mehta, learned advocate representing respondent no.2 - the insurance company, has entered their appearance. With the able assistance of the learned advocates on record for the respective parties, the appeal has been peremptorily heard finally.

4. Mr. Raj A. Jadeja, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned advocate on record for the appellant, and has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order by submitting that the Tribunal committed serious error in dismissing the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, 1988. It was submitted that while dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was the driver and not the owner of the auto-rickshaw. However, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha and others , reported in (2012) 2 SCC 356, observed that it shall be open for the Tribunal to consider the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, on ‘the fault’ ground. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal has misconstrued the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinitha (supra).

4.1 The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that initially the claim petition preferred under Section 163A of the Act, 1988, was entertained by the Tribunal by passing judgment and award dated 19th December, 2009, holding the opponents viz. the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- to the claimants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the insurance company had preferred an appeal which was registered as First Appeal no.1279 of 2010 before this Court, which came to be decided vide order dated 7th March, 2012. While issuing appropriate directions of remand, the Hon'ble High Court had considered the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly in para 6 in the case of Sinitha (supra), and had directed the Tribunal to decide it afresh.

4.2 After the aforesaid proceedings being