Owner-rider not entitled to injury compensation under personal accident policy; coverage limited to death only.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the Award, dated

19.10.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.455 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The respondent in M.C.O.P.No.455 of 2013 is the appellant herein.

The petitioner/claimant is the respondent herein.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.

455 of 2013 are adopted hereunder.

4.The brief facts of the case:

On 23.02.2012 at about 21.30 hours, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 69 H 5844 in S.N High Road, Sripuram, Tirunelveli Junction and while he was passing in front of Central Bank from west to east, a dog suddenly crossed, the motorcycle dashed against the dog and the petitioner sustained injuries and a fracture in his right leg. He took treatment at Shree Sudharson Hospital, Tirunelveli. The vehicle was insured with the respondent/Insurance Company and hence, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5.The respondent/Insurance Company strongly objected the claim petition and contended that the petitioner is owner cum rider, who fell down by his own act of dashing against a dog. The insurance policy is for third party risk. The petitioner is not a third party, he himself caused the accident and sustained injuries. When the claim is made by the tort-feaser or any person claiming under the tort-feaser, the question of vicarious liability will not arise. The petitioner is not a third party to his vehicle and the accident was not a result of some actionable negligence of a third party. Even for personal coverage towards death, there is no other benefit to the owner-cum- rider of the vehicle whose negligence led to the accident taken place. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any claim from the respondent insurance company.

6.Before the Tribunal, on the petitioner's side, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. On the respondent's side, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked.

7.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order, dated 19.10.2019 and held that in the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries himself and as per personal coverage, awarded compensation, directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

8.Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company mainly argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and FIR was registered against the petitioner himself. The claim petition was filed U/s.166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles (Amended) Act. The petitioner is a rider cum owner, who fell down and sustained simple injuries. The petitioner, as P.W.1 and the Tribunal clearly stated that as the dog crossed, the petitioner dashed against the dog and fell down. The policy taken by the petitioner is a package policy. Therefore, there is no liability to pay compensation for the injuries, as it only covers death. But the Tribunal has erred in passing an award granting Rs.50,000/-, which is against the law. As per the policy principle, if the petitioner paid Rs.50/-, the above said sum can be awarded only in case of death. The petitioner took treatment for the injuries sustained. There is a delay in lodging the FIR by the petitioner himself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in various cases that the owner/insured who is not a third party, is not entitled to claim compensa