The court asserted that claims under Section 163(A) are not maintainable if the deceased is a tortfeasor, reinforcing a distinction between claims for third-party liability and claims involving the insured's own negligence.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2016, dated 15.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

2. The appellant/Insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.12,39,600/- with interest and costs to the respondents 1 to 4 / claimants for the death of Raghavan consequent to an accident occurred on 12.03.2016, challenged the liability mulcted on it and also the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 11.02.2016, the deceased was taking some persons to Arcot for attending a meeting from Pavoorchathiram in a Tempo Traveller Van bearing Registration No.TN-76-J-6689 and on 12.03.2016 at about 03.00 o' clock in the early morning, when the van was proceeding near Mavur Dam junction opposite to Biovarani building of Madurai-Dindigul NH-7 road, a lorry which proceeding in front of the van applied sudden break and in order to avoid dashing against the lorry, the van driver had turned his vehicle, but lost his control and the vehicle fell into the crater and as a result of which, the driver sustained multiple injuries all over his body and when he was taken to Dindigul Government Hospital, he was declared dead and that the accident was occurred only due to the negligent driving of the lorry driver. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and he was working as a driver and was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/-per month.

5. The defence of the second respondent/Insurer is that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one of the passengers of the van, a criminal case was registered in Cr.No.91 of 2016, against the driver of the said vehicle, that the deceased Raghavan while overtaking the heavy goods vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident, that since the deceased is the tortfeasor, the claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself is not maintainable and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. During enquiry, the claimants have examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and one Thenrajan as P.W.2 and exhibited 3 documents as Exs.P. 1 to P.3. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent / Insurer has examined its staff Madasamy as R.W.1 and exhibited one document as Ex.R.1. The learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order dated 15.11.2019 by holding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, but mulcted the liability on the second respondent /Insurer and directed them to pay the compensation of Rs.

12,39,600/- with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the second respondent / Insurer has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. Admittedly, the first respondent / first claimant is the father, the second respondent / second claimant is the mother, the third respondent / third claimant is the brother and the fourth respondent / fourth claimant is the sister of the deceased Raghavan. The learned Counsel for the appellant / Insurer would mainly contend that the deceased was a tortfeasor, that the deceased borrowed the insured vehicle and as such, stepped into the shoes of the insured, that the deceased was not employed by the insured and that therefore, the claim petition filed under Section

163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself is not maintainable.

8. It is evident from the records that the claimants have made claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As already pointed out, in the claim petition the claimants have stated that when the lorry which was moving in front of the van applied sudden break, the van driver in