Tortfeasor claimant not entitled to injury compensation under Personal Accident Cover before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

P. Vadamalai, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the Award, dated 17.03.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

2. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2015 st is the appellant herein. The 1st respondent is the petitioner/claimant and the 2nd respondent is the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2015.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No. 256 of 2015 are adopted hereunder.

4. The brief facts of the case:

On 20.08.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., the petitioner, along with one Halith as pillion rider, was riding the first respondent’s two wheeler/TVS Star City bearing registration number TN 76 M 1231, when it overturned in front of the house of Faark of Mekkarai. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries and a fracture in his right leg. He took first aid at the Government Hospital and then took treatment at K.P.Hospital, Tenkasi. The 1^st respondent’s two wheeler was insured with the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company, and hence, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5.The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6.The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company strongly objected to the claim petition and contended that the petitioner, along with the pillion rider, was driving the motorcycle at high speed, lost control of the vehicle and fell down. The petitioner himself invited the accident. An FIR in Crime No.194 of 2014 U/s.279 and 337 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner and later, a charge sheet was also laid against the petitioner. The said case was taken on file by the competent jurisdictional Court as STC.No.17 of 2015 against the petitioner. Since the petitioner himself is a tortfeasor, he cannot file a claim for compensation against the 2^nd respondent.

7.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked seven documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the second respondent's side, R.W.1 & R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 were marked.

8.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order, dated 17.03.2020 and held that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, however, it awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Personal Accident Cover against the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

9.Aggrieved by the said award, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10.Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2^nd respondent/Insurance Company mainly argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner, for the said accident FIR was registered against the petitioner and a charge sheet was laid against him, copy of charge sheet is marked as Ex.R.1. The claim petition was not filed U/s.163 A of the MV Act. No third-party vehicle was involved in this accident. The petitioner is a tortfeasor, so he cannot file a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence, but has awarded compensation under Personal Accident Cover. The petitioner sustained only 15% disability and he is not entitled to any compensation even under the Personal Accident Cover. The policy covers only death, not injuries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in various cases that the owner/insured who is not a third party is not entitled to claim compensation before the MAC Tribunal under Personal Accident Coverage except for death. The D