J U D G M E N T

The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".

2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 14.06.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur.

3.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. The respondents filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son viz., Vignesh, who died in the accident that took place on 05.10.2012.

4.According to respondents, on 05.10.2012 at about 01.30 hours (midnight), while the deceased Vignesh was driving the Tata Ace Tempo bearing Registration No.KA 51 A 4857 on Hosur – Thally Road Junction near Sangam Steel Company, the driver of the Tata Ace lost control and dashed on the right side road tree and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Vignesh sustained multiple grievous injuries in his head and all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the said Vignesh was taken to Government Hospital, Hosur for first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to Ashok Hospital, Hosur for further treatment. Then, he was taken to St.Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. Inpsite of treatment, the said Vignesh succumbed to injuries on 09.10.2012. Therefore the respondents, being the parents of the deceased filed the above said claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Tata Ace.

5.The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Tata Ace filed counter statment and denied all the averments made by the respondents. The respondents have to prove that the policy issued by the appellant for the Tata Ace bearing Registration No.KA 51 A 4857 in policy No.455100/31/2012/7890 for the period from 31.03.2012 to 30.03.2013 was in force on the date of accident, i.e., on 05.10.2012, as the policy was not yet confirmed. In the F.I.R., it was mentioned that the deceased only drove the Tata Ace in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and no other vehicles are involved in the alleged accident and the deceased was a tort feasor. From the policy papers it is seen that there was a limited coverage available for the Personal Accident for owner driver – GR – 36A. The Personal Accident cover has been issued under Section III for owner – Driver (CSI) Rs.2,00,000/- only. Hence, the legal representatives are legally entitled to the limited coverage of Rs.2,00,000/- only under the contractual liability and there was no cover for the owner under the statutory liability. The contractual liability arose under the policy could be claimed by the claimants from the insurance company by filing claim forms. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of death of the driver cum owner of the impugned vehicle. The alleged accident was held due to own tort of the deceased. Hence, there shall be no statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act cast on the head of the Insurance Company. There shall not be any claim in respect of own damage of the insured vehicle before the Tribunal. The claim form in respect of Personal Accident coverage and claim form in respect of vehicle damage have been submitted by claimants before the Insurance Company and the same have been denied by the Insurance Company. The claim petition has to be dismissed on the ground of no jurisdiction to entertain own tort claim and own damage claim and there shall be no statutory liability. The respondents have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid documents. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and one Basav