J U D G M E N T

Challenge made in this appeal is to the award, dated

29.09.2015 made in MCOP No.171 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Srivilliputtur.

2.The short facts of the case is that on 31.05.2008 at about

11.00 pm, when the deceased Saravanan along with one employee Pallavan gone to Rajapalayam in the Two Wheeler TN-67-M-7956 from Srivilliputtur to Rajapalayam, near RTO Office on the left side of the road, in the opposite direction, a person suddenly crossed the road and dashed against the Two Wheeler, resulting which, the said person died on the spot. Due to the said accident, Saravanan and Pallavan were thrown out and sustained injuries and the said Saravanan was admitted in the Government Hospital at Srivilliputtur and subsequently, he was taken to Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital and he died on 11.06.2008. The legal heirs of the deceased Saravanan filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Saravanan.

3.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. Challenging the dismissal order, the claimants are before this court.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants argued that as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the determination of who is at fault is foreign, when the claim is made invoking section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the legislature never ever wanted the claimant to prove the negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle and Section 163-A deals with no fault liability and as such, the application filed under section 163-A is liable to be allowed and prays that the claimants are entitled to compensation as claimed. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted the following decisions:-

(1)2018(2)TN MAC 499 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. P.Suresh);

(2)2019(2) TN MAC 775(DB) (Cal.)

(Jogomaya Mondal and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others); (3)2018 ACJ 1 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar and another);

(4)2013(6) CTC 891 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Kumr and another);

(5)2011 ACJ 940 (New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Muna Maya Basant and another).

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent/2nd respondent argued that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased and the deceased is not a 3rd party and as per the policy condition, he stepped into the shoes of the owner at the time of accident and hence, the claim petition is not maintainable. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent/2nd respondent submitted the following decisions:-

(1)2020(2) TN MAC 445(SC) (Beli Ram Vs.

Rajinder Kumar and another); and (2)2020(1)TN MAC 1 (Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited).

7.It is admitted fact that the deceased Saravanan borrowed the vehicle from the 1st respondent and drove the vehicle with one Pallavan, who is a pillion rider. In respect of the accident, FIR was registered only as against the deceased Saravanan and the criminal case was closed “As abated” since the rider of the of the vehicle reported to be dead. If the claim petition is filed under section 163(A) of the MV Act, it is not necessary to decide the question of negligence. In this case, FIR was registered as against the deceased. Further, the deceased Saravanan borrowed the vehicle from the 1st respondent and in the decision reported in 2020(1) TN MAC 1 SC (Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another), it was held that a person borrowed vehicle from another person and accident took place due to his negligence, then it was held that the victim stepped into the shoes of the owner and he is not a 3rd party.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that as per the