A borrower of a vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as they are not considered a third party.

JUDGMENT :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021 passed in MCOP.No.1029 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

2. It is the case of the claimants/1^st and 2^nd respondents that, on 17.04.2018 at about 8.30 hours, when the deceased Rajesh Khanna was riding the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-55-AX-7540 owned by the 3^rd respondent insured with the appellant herein along with the son of the 3^rd respondent in Chennai-Madurai National Highway from south to north direction at Puduppatti Koot Road, near Viralimalai due to bad maintenance of the vehicle, the handle bar struck, dragged and skidded, due to which the deceased sustained head injury and other multiple injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereby, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents/claimants, who are the parent of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. Before the tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.16 and on the side of the appellant-insurer, the Inspector of Viralimalai Police Station was examined as R.W.1 and one exhibit viz., R1 was marked. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,87,000/- towards compensation to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents/claimants payable by the appellant/insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the deceased himself is a tort feasor, he borrowed the vehicle from the 3^rd respondent and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and fell down and sustained fatal injuries, for which, the FIR, Ex.P1 came to be registered as against the deceased and that the deceased did not possess valid license at the time of accident and he is not the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the respondents 1 & 2/claimants are not entitled to file claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 593 [ National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rani and others ]

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents/claimants submitted that though the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the 3^rd respondent and the deceased may have lost his life due to his negligence, even then, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereby, the Tribunal, after careful consideration of the material documents placed before it passed the present impugned award, which cannot be said to be erroneous and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. Though notice was served and the name of the 3^rd respondent was printed in the cause list, none appeared on his behalf. Considering the period of pendency of this appeal, this Court is inclined to dispose of this appeal based on the available materials.

6. The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. Admittedly, the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the 3^rd respondent. The issue that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the borrower of the vehicle is entitled for compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. The issued involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 593 [ National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rani and others ], the relevant portion of the same reads as follows:

“9. The recent Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Another [2020 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC)], elaborately discussed the scope of claim petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Undoubtedly, the Special Provision cannot be read in isolation and