J U D G M E N T

The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.

2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 10.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.1120 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.

3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1120 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the said claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rajiv Gandhi, who died in the accident that took place on 21.07.2017.

4.According to respondents 1 to 5, on 21.07.2017 at about 15.00 hours, while the deceased Rajiv Gandhi was driving the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 20 AH 5032 from VCR Kandigai to Tiruttani, a dog suddenly crossed the road and despite efforts taken by the said Rajiv Gandhi to avoid hitting the dog, lost control over the motorcycle, fell down on the road, sustained head injuries and died. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 filed the said claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Rajiv Gandhi against the 6th respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively.

5.The 6th respondent, being the owner of the motorcycle remained exparte before the Tribunal.

6.The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle owned by 6th respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1to 5. The appellant has stated that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and the Inspector of Police, D-1, Tiruttani Police Station, who investigated the case also filed final report/charge sheet stating that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The motorcycle driven by the deceased Rajiv Gandhi was borrowed from the 6th respondent by the deceased. The deceased being the borrower is not covered by the Insurance Policy No.39010231176200804369 issued by the appellant. The respondents 1 to 5 have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 5 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7.Before the Tribunal, 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and

15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15. The appellant-Insurance Company examined their official S.Ramadevi as R.W.1 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

8.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the accident involving the 6th respondent's motorcycle and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 5.

9.To set aside the award dated 10.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.1120 of 2019, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in granting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5, when the claim petition itself is not maintainable. The Tribunal failed to note that Personal Accident Coverage cases can only be tried in City Civil Court and not in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and also failed to adjudicate the issue on maintainability and liability. The deceased is not the registered owner of the vehicle. The claim of Rs.1,00,000/- is not covered under Personal Accident claim. Personal Accident Coverage is applicable only to the registered owner of the vehicle. The deceased-rider of the motorcycle is not the registered owner. The Tribunal ought to have held that the respondents 1 to 5 are not entitled to any compensation even under the Personal Accident Coverage. According to terms of contract of insurance, the appellant is not liab