The Branch Manager v. Manivanan

Judgment This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Page2 of 6 Dharmapuri in MCOP No.885 of 2019 dated 28.02.2022.

¶2The 1st respondent is the claimant. The case of the 1st respondent is that on 01.08.2018, while he was riding a two wheeler belonging to the 2nd respondent on the Salem – Krishnagiri Road, an unknown Scorpio car was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his right side shoulder, right leg and left ankle. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.

¶3The Insurance company took a stand that the claimant was not the owner of the two wheeler and that he had borrowed the vehicle from the 2nd respondent. Since the accident had occurred while the claimant was riding the borrowed vehicle, the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable.

¶4The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the claim petition was maintainable and fixed the total compensation at Rs.1,52,436/- under various heads as follows :- Page3 of 6 Sl.No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.)

¶1Just compensation Rs.45,000/-

¶2Loss of earnings for 4 months Rs.20,000/-

¶3Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/-

¶4Cost of Nourishment Rs.15,000/-

¶5Cost of the attender Rs.10,000/-

¶6Medical expenses Rs.31,436/-

¶7Transport expenses Rs.10,000/-

¶8Loss of clothing on accident Rs.1,000/-Total Rs.1,52,436/-

¶5The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.

¶6Heard Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for appellant. Though the respondents have been served with notice and their names have also been printed in the cause list, there is no representation either in person or through counsel.

¶7This Court carefully considered the submissions made on the side of the appellant and the materials available on record.

¶8This Court also carefully went through the award passed by the Page4 of 6 Tribunal.

¶9The main ground that was urged on the side of the appellant is that the policy marked as Ex.P3 clearly reveals that there was no personal accident coverage and that it covered only third party liability. Apart from that, it was contended that a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the vehicle from whom the claimant had borrowed the vehicle is not maintainable.

¶10In the case in hand, the 1st respondent had borrowed the two wheeler from the 2nd respondent, who was the owner of the vehicle. The 1st respondent met with an accident and sustained injuries. By no stretch, the borrower of the vehicle can be treated as a third party. Exhibit P3 shows that there was no personal accident coverage and that it covered only the third party risk. Since the claimant cannot be considered to be a third party, there is no statutory coverage available under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶11In the absence of risk of the claimant neither being covered under the policy nor under the statute, the insurance company cannot be mulcted with any liability. The claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act against the owner of the two wheeler from whom the claimant had borrowed the vehicle is also not sustainable. Useful reference can be made to the judgement of the Apex Page5 of 6 Court in [Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another] reported in 2020 1 CTC 443. Reference can also be made to the judgement of this Court in [National Insurance Co. Ltd Puducherry Vs. Rani and others] reported in 2020 2 CTC 703.

¶12In the light of the above discussion, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in MCOP No.885 of 2019 dated 28.02.2022 by entertaining the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarding compensation under the structured formula cannot be sustained. This Court finds sufficient ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the same is set-aside. The amount deposited by the Insurance company along with accrued interest shall be permitted to be withdrawn.

¶13In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RKA CMAoNo.o2676oofo2022 N.ANANDoVENKATESHoJ. RKA CMAoNo.o2676oofo2022 AND CMPoNO.o20950oOFo2022 13-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND CMP NO. 20950 OF 2022 The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 39-C, Bye Pass Road, Dharmapuri - 636 701. ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Manivanan S/o. Govindhan, No. 1/259, Pulikkarai Village and post, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 2. M. Anand S/o. Mariyappan, No. 1/256, Pulikkarai Village and post, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ..Respondent(s) To set aside the award dated 28th day of February 2022 made in MCOP No.885 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge) at Dharmapuri. For Appellant(s): M/s. C. Ramesh Babu