BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 09/07/2024 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN CMA(MD)No.671 of 2021 and CMP(MD)No.6299 of 2021 The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor, Raj Towers, Near Kalaignar Arivalayam, Tiruchirappalli-620 002. : Appellant/2^nd Respondent Vs.

1.Rajendran

2.Rukmani : Respondents 1 and 2/

Petitioners

3.R.Suresh : 3^rd Respondent/1^st Respondent PRAYER:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No.218 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Trichy, dated 17/09/2020.

For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali For R1 and R2 : Mr.J.Sulthan Basha For 3rd Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the award passed in MCOP No.218 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Trichy, dated 17/09/2020.

2.The facts in brief:-

On 02/02/2015 at about 00.45 am, the deceased Mohanraj was riding a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-48-R-0563 which belongs to the first respondent on the Thiruvanaikoil to Srirengam main road. Near the Railway over bridge, a dog was suddenly crossing the road. So the deceased tried to avoid the hit. In that process, dashed against the wooden log on the bridge portion, sustained injuries taken to the Government Hospital, Srirengam and later to Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichy, where he was declared to be dead at

02.45 am.

3.A case in Crime No.36 of 2015 was registered by the Traffic North Investigation Wing Police, Srirengam for the offences under sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. Claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- stating that the deceased was aged about 23 and working in a private company in Chennai and earning Rs.35,000/- per month.

4.That was resisted by the Insurance Company stating that the deceased himself is a tort-feasor. He sustained injuries and died because of his own negligence. So the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The deceased is not a third party. The deceased riding the two wheeler without wearing the helmet and had no proper driving licence. Apart from that, it is also stated that section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not apply to the present claim petition.

5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, 2 witnesses examined and 2 documents marked. Apart from that, two documents were examined as Exs.X1 and X2.

6.With regard to the first aspect of negligence, it is seen that no more discussion is required. It is a self accident. Whether it occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the deceased or due to sudden crossing of a dog are all matters, which do not require to say that it is self accident for which no third party liability is involved.

7.The main contention on the part of the appellant is that the claim petition is filed under sections 140 and 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Neither of these two provisions apply to the factual circumstances of the case.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would straightaway rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Mahalakshmi 2024(1) TN MAC 34 (DB) which referred and followed the judgment of the Hon'be Supreme court in Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., [2020(1) CTC 443 (SC) and contend that a detailed discussion has been made on this aspect and a conclusion was reached by the Division Bench of this court, which is extracted herein:-

“19.On a perusal of the various judgments, we cull out the following principles of law: (i)The risk of the owner or borrower or permissive user of the vehicle involved in the accident and consequent claim arising thereunder is not covered under Section 147 of the M.V.Act.

(ii)It does not matter whether the claim in the above cases are