Personal Accident coverage claims cannot be filed under Section 166 if the claimant is the vehicle owner; such claims are contractual and not statutory.

JUDGME NT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the orders passed in M.C.O.P. No.594 of 2015, dated 09.08.2021, on the file of the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirupur.

2. The facts of the case, which has given rise to this appeal is that, on

31.01.2015, at about 8.30 hours, the deceased Vasantha Kumar was travelling in his Appachi Bike bearing Registration No. TN-39-BP-3103 with his friend Pandi Jagadeesan in Tirupur to Avinashi Road, met with an accident and died.

3. The legal representatives of the deceased came forward to file a Claim Petition before the MACT, Tirupur, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Insurance Company has resisted the claim of the claimants stating that the petition filed under is not maintainable, since the deceased himself was the cause for the accident and also he was the owner of the vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

4. The Tribunal, ultimately granted compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which is payable under the Personal Accident cover in the Insurance Policy. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Insurance Company had come forward with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company would contend that, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, is not maintainable in view of the fact that, when the owner or their legal representatives are the claimants, they cannot file the claim petition relying upon Personal Accident cover, as the deceased is not a third party. While so, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants under Personal Accident cover. To support his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment reported in2024(4) LW 396 ( M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited vs. V. Shanmugam )

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants would submit that, the question of limited liability was not pleaded by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and therefore, the same cannot be raised in the appeal. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation by holding that, the claim of owner / borrower / permissive user would be limited to Personal Accident coverage. To support his contention he has relied upon the following judgments:

1. Manjusha and others vs. United India Assurance Company Limited and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1512

2. Ramkhiladi and anoter vs. United India Insurance Company and another reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 550.

7. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

8. Admittedly, the motor bike in which the deceased was travelling belong to him. The Tribunal has considered the case of the claimants for grant of compensation under the Personal Accident cover Policy. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased is the owner of the vehicle, he has no locus standi to file the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable.

9. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the maintainability of the Claim Petition was questioned, the said issue has to be decided as preliminary issue, so as to arrive at a conclusion whether any compensation can be granted to the claimants in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988.

10. Admittedly, the deceased is the owner of the two wheeler, which met with an accident and that he is responsible for the cause of the accident as per the FIR. The Tribunal also arrived at a conclusion that the deceased is responsible for the accident. Undoubtedly