JUDGMENT

The claimants are the appellants herein. It was an unfortunate fatal accident that took place on 03.10.2017 at around 7.30 p.m., when the deceased was riding his motorcylce from Veesarediyur to Chinnatirupathi, he was forced to negotiate a dog that jumped on the line of the motion of the motorcycle suddenly. The motorcycle belonged to the first respondent (who chose to remain exparte before the Tribunal), and the victim was his employee who used the vehicle at that relevant time for his employer's purposes.

2. Seeking compensation, the dependants of the victim moved the MACT with MCOP.No.290 of 2018 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988. The Tribunal dismissed the claim essentially on the ground that since the victim himself was the tortfeasor, his dependants cannot maintain a claim for compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the dependants are before the Court.

3.1 The learned counsel for the appellants submitted the following :

(a)The Tribunal was wrong in branding the victim as a tortfeasor.

The manner of accident indicates that it is an inevitable accident and therefore, no negligence can be attributed to him;

(b)Before the Tribunal, the insurance company took