1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A.(MD).No.172 of 2011 The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Sivashakthi Shopping Complex, 24-E, 1st floor, 12/A S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli Junction. ... Appellant/Respondent 2 Vs. 1.Rajaponnammal 2.Sathishkumar 3.Sujatha Esthar 4.Subash Jacob 5.Sunandha 6.Minor Jacob respondent 6 minor rep. By his mother and next friend Rajaponnammal ... Respondents 1 to 6/Petitioners 7.G.Premkumar ... Respondent 7/Respondent 1 Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 07.08.2009 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court Tirunelveli and praying to set aside the same. For Appellant :Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian For Respondents :Mr.G.Thalimutharasu for RR-1 to 6 No appearance for R-7 J U D G M E N T The award dated 07.08.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tirunelveli is being challenged in the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 2.The respondents herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to award a compensation of Rs.4,46,500/-, wherein, the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.It is stated in the petition that on 29.03.2007 at about 21.30 hours, the deceased has driven a Hero Honda Splender bearing Regn.No.TN- 72-L-2544 and the same belongs to the first respondent. At the time of his driving, a dog has suddenly crossed the road and the deceased has applied brake and due to that, the accident has happened. After accident, the deceased has passed away. The vehicle which caused the accident belongs to the first respondent and the same has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the reliefs sought for therein. 4.In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the deceased has driven the vehicle which belongs to the first respondent without having license and therefore the first respondent is alone liable to pay compensation. The second respondent is not liable to pay anything to the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5.On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,68,500/- against the respondents 1 & 2 and with regard to liability and also maintainability of the present petition, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/ appellant has contended that the vehicle which involved in the accident belongs to the first respondent and the deceased has been authorised to drive the same and since he has been authorised to drive the same, he is a deemed owner of the vehicle which involved in the accident and he himself invited accident and therefore the present petition is not legally maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, without considering the aforesaid legal point, has erroneously passed the award in question and therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners has contended that the deceased has been engaged by the first respondent for harvesting paddy and only at his instruction, he has driven the vehicle which belongs to him and all of a sudden, a dog has crossed and in order to save its life, the deceased has applied sudden brake and due to that, the accident has happened and therefore the deceased would not be called as a deemed owner. Under the said circumstances, the present petition is legally maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the available evidence on record, has rightly passed the award in question and therefore, the present civil miscellaneous appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8.Admittedly the present petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the same reads as follows: 163-A:Special Provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis: (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs of the victim, as the case may be. (2)In any claim for compensation under sub- section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.” 9.Even from a cursory look of the Provision of section 163-A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is made clear that the owner of the vehicle means the owner in whose name registration is existence or the person who has been authorised to drive the vehicle. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the decision reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 169 Supreme Court, (Ningamma & another vs United India Insurance Company Limited), wherein, the Honourable Apex Court has dealt with a similar factual situation and ultimately found that the person who has been entrusted with a vehicle can also be deemed as owner and a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not legally maintainable. In view of the decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court, it is very clear that the deceased is nothing but a deemed owner of the vehicle and he himself invited the accident and therefore the present petition is not legally maintainable under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, without considering the word 'authorised' which has been used in sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the said Act and also without considering the correct legal position of law, has erroneously come to the conclusion that the present petition is legally maintainable. Under the said circumstances, in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court is of the view that the entire approach made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is totally incorrect. Under the said circumstances, the award in question is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 11.In fine, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed without costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2011 are closed and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tirunelveli is set aside and M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2007 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. The respondents/petitioners are directed to make appropriate steps so as to amend the petition. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after observing all legal formalities, is directed to dispose of M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2007 before the end of October 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.S) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To The Principal District Judge, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Tirunelveli. + 1 cc to Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate, SR No.23661 C.M.A.(MD).No.172 of 2011 18/07/2011 vs RJ/28.7.11 4p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/