J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of dismissal passed in M.C.O.P.No.433 of 2013, dated 10.12.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court, Dindigul.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 07.10.2012 at about

10.00 am., when the claimant was driving his Mahendra Pickup Van bearing Registration No.TN-57-K-9175 with jalli load from Moonjukkal, Kodaikanal and at the place near Naidupuram Tippo, Jai Hotel and in front of GRT Villa gate, a dog suddenly intervened and the claimant, in order to avoid the vehicle to dash against the dog, applied the sudden brake, but the vehicle lost its control and dashed against the tree situated on the left side of the road and toppled and that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries on his right wrist and right side head and he was immediately taken to Kodaikanal Van Allen Hospital and after first aid treatment, he was referred to Devadoss Hospital, Madurai.

3. It is the further case of the claimant that after treatment, he was discharged from Devadoss Hospital on 20.10.2012, that the claimant is unable to do any work as before and that the claimant is owning the goods vehicle involved in the accident and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month.

4. The defence of the respondent/insurer is that the accident had occurred due to the mistake of the claimant himself; that the claimant is not a third party and that the claimant being the owner and driver of the vehicle, the claim petition is not maintainable.

5.During trial, the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The respondent/insurer has examined its official Thiru.Vaitheeswaran as R.W.1 and adduced no documentary evidence.

6. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing of arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned award, dated 10.12.2018, by holding that the claimant is not a third party with regard to the contract of insurance existed between the claimant and the respondent; that though the claimant is entitled to get personal accident benefits, he has to approach the competent Court and is not entitled to claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and that therefore, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, is not maintainable, dismissed the claim petition.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the appellant's vehicle insurance policy insured with the respondent is contractual in nature and that the appellant has to approach the proper forum and not entitled to invoke Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act; that though the appellant's insurance policy is basically a personal accident cover by paying additional premium, the respondent is liable to pay to the extent as agreed under the policy; that though the appellant is not a third party and the policy is not an Act policy, being a holder of comprehensive policy, is entitled for the policy amount and that therefore, the impugned order dismissing the claim petition is liable to be set aside.

8. The points that arise for consideration are :

(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the entire claim petition, despite showing that the claimant is entitled get the compensation under the personal accident coverage as he had paid necessary premium towards PA coverage for the owner of the vehicle .?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, to what extent ?

9. Admittedly, the Mahendra Pickup Van bearing Registration No.TN-57-K-9175, is owned by the claimant and the claimant alone had driven the vehicle at the time of accident. Even according to the claimant, a dog suddenly crossed the road and hence, the claimant had applied the brake and consequently, dashed against the tree situated on the left side of the road and the vehicle got toppled and as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries.

10. Admittedly, on the bas