IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2756 of 2021

1. Megala

2. Rajesh

3. Minor Deepan

4. Minor Prasad

(Minor petitioners 3 & 4 are represented

by their mother and natural guardian the

1^st petitioner herein)

5. Letchumi

... Appellants/Petitioners

Vs.

1. Sundaravel

2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Thiruvarur, Rep. By the Branch Manager,

Having his office at Thiruvarur Town,

Taluk, District & Munsif.

Thiruvarur.

... Respondents/Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow the claim in MCOP No.8 of 2018

dated 21.12.2020, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(Additional District Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court),

Nagapattinam.

For Appellant

: Mr. K.Varadhakamaraj

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.D.Baskaran

R1

:

NA

J U D G M E N T

The wholesale rejection of the claim petition under

Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the legal heirs of

Murugesan, who died in a Motor Accident that occurred on

09.09.2013, has resulted in this Appeal by the said legal heirs.

2.The claimants sought for compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

contending that the deceased was forced to go to the extreme

left side of the road because of oncoming vehicle which was

driven in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of it, he

dashed against the Banyan Tree. The accident resulted in his

death. Therefore, according to the claimants, since Murugesan

is a third party, he would be entitled to compensation under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company

contending that the accident was caused due to the negligence of

Murugesan and he being a borrower and rider of the vehicle

cannot be treated as a third party. Even assuming he could be

treated as a third party, the said Murugesan did not have a

valid driving license and therefore, he is not entitled to

compensation even under the Personal Accident cover that is

available to the owner of the vehicle.

4. The Tribunal upon examination of the evidence on

record found that the deceased was riding a borrowed two

wheeler, which belonged to one Sundaravel, it was also found

that the deceased did not have a valid driving license. In view

of the above factual situation, the Tribunal held that though he

could be treated as a person, who had stepped into the shoes of

the owner and would be entitled to the fixed compensation under

the Personal Accident Cover, since he was driving the vehicle

without a valid driving license, he would not be entitled to

that Personal Accident Cover also. On such finding, the

Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

5. Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants would contend that in view of the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another v. United India

Insurance Company and others, reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC 1,

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that a person, who

had borrowed the vehicle of another, steps into the shoes of the

owner of the vehicle and therefore, he would be entitled to the

limited liability under Personal Accident Cover which is

Rs.1,00,000/-.

6. The Original Petition out of which the case before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court arose was filed under Section 163A and the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. When that was

challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, The Hon’ble Supreme

Court pointed out that the Tribunal could not have granted

Rs.5,00,000/-, but as a person stepping into the shoes of the

owner, the borrower of the vehicle would be entitled to

Rs.1,00,000/- under the Personal Accident Cover. Even as