JUDGMENT

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The Appellant herein is the Insurance Company.

2.Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a)On 12.05.2013 at about 08.15 p.m., while the first respondent herein/claim petitioner was riding motorcycle of the second respondent herein bearing Registration No. PY-01/AP-9340 on Panruti – Salem main road, at Panruti, a Pedestrian suddenly crossed the road, to avoid the accident the first respondent herein/claim petitioner turned the vehicle and colluded with a car and resulted in the accident. Due to the accident the first respondent herein/claim petitioner thrown out of his motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over his body and head.

(b).Hence, the first respondent herein has filed claim petition in MCOP.No.3223 of 2013, before the learned Sub-Judge, Cuddalore, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident.

3.Per contra, the Insurance Company has stated that as per FIR on the date of accident i.e., on 12.05.2013, when the first respondent herein/claim petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-AP-9340 slowly in Panruti to Salem main road near municipal office one Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-31-F-0841 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the first respondent herein/claim petitioner and hence, the he sustained grievous injuries. By mentioning the said facts complaint was given by the second respondent herein and on that basis FIR was registered against the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. TN- 31-F-0841 under Crime No.428 of 2013 on 15.05.2013 by Panruti Police. So when the accused is driver of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-31-F-0841 vehicle, and when he is the accused MCOP should have filed only against the owner of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. TN-31-F-0841 with its Insurance Company only.

4.Before the Tribunal during the course of examination, on behalf of the claim petitioner, he himself was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 though him and Dr.R.Venugopal was examined as PW2 and documents were marked as Exs.P8 & P9 and on behalf of the Insurance Company one Velmurugan, Investigation Officer, was examined as RW1 and marked Ex.R1/Investigation Report on 31.03.2014. On the side of the Insurance Company, a petition under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act filed and allowed.

5.The Tribunal has considered the claim petition under Section

163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,350/- as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6.Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the claim petitioner/injured in the incident is the younger brother of the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.PY-01-AP-9340 and he borrowed the vehicle from his brother and on his own accord, in order to avoid the pedestrian being hit who suddenly crossed the road, dashed against the Tata Sumo. He would further submit that the claim petitioner himself is a tort feasor and borrower of the vehicle cannot claim compensation by filing a petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8.As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal has not gone into the factum of the accident and manner of the accident. As per the evidence of the PW1/claim petitioner, by his own accord, without involvement of any other vehicle, he dashed against the car and he has filed a claim petition against the Insurance Company of his own vehicle, which he has driven at the time of the accident. The second respondent remained ex-parte. The claim petitioner is a borrower of the vehicle and hence, he steps into the shoes of the owner of