The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2013.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Tribunal Rules, 1989, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Mr.Mani.

3. The case of the petitioner is as explained hereunder:

4. The Insurance company filed a counter affidavit before the Claims Tribunal, setting out the defense as under:

5. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties and regarding the liability to pay compensation for the death of owner cum driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TAL 6725, the Tribunal arrived a finding that the claimant being legal representative of the deceased Mani are not entitled for compensation under the policy marked as Ex.R1 as the said Mani met with an accident, while he was driving the Lorry as owner cum driver and the policy 4/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 taken by him is only an Act Policy. The Tribunal rejected the compensation on the ground that it is an Act policy, and the Accident Claims Tribunal cannot grant compensation. The Policy was marked as Ex.R1, is a stand alone policy and independent and therefore, based on the said policy, the compensation cannot be claimed. However, the Tribunal further adjudicated whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the personal accident policy of insurance? If so, what shall be the quantum and from whom?

6. As far as the personal accident policy is concerned, the Tribunal relied on certain judgments. The Tribunal considered the personal accident policy marked as Ex.R2 and relied on the judgment in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Vs. C.Ramesh , reported in 2013(1) TN MAC 325. In the personal accident policy, the maximum compensation shall not exceed the amount mentioned in the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal formed an opinion that the fixed compensation as per the personal accident policy is to be granted in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal further referred two other judgments and held that the Tribunal has 5/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition for grant of compensation under the personal accident policy.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the personal accident individual policy marked as Ex.R2 is a stand alone policy and admittedly, not under the Motor Vehicles Act . The Motor Vehicles Act being a special legislation and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is constituted to deal with the accident claims, specifically and only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act , the said Tribunal cannot have jurisdiction to deal with the other policies issued by the Insurance companies and in such an event, the policy holder is entitled to claim benefit under the stand alone policy by approaching the appropriate forum.

8. It is relevant to consider that the Motor Vehicles policies are issued by the Insurance companies for the purpose of grant of compensation i.e., the language employed is “compensation”. However, in the personal accident policy, it is clearly stated that the “benefit” is to be granted. Thus, the word compensation adopted under the Motor Vehicle Policies cannot be equated 6/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 with the “benefits” to be granted under the personal accidents policy, which is independent and unconnected with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the compensation to be granted under the Motor Vehicles Act . This being the basic difference in respect of the personal accident policy, the Tribunal cannot have any jurisdiction, so as to adjudicate the issues with reference to such stand alone policies and if such a power is granted, then the scope of the powers conferred under the Tribunal is exceeded and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction, so as to grant the benefit under the personal accident policy.

9. Each policy is a contract. The terms and conditions of the policies are binding on the parties to the policy. When the contractual obligations between the parties with reference to the Motor Vehicles Act is not established, then the Tribunal cannot have any jurisdiction to entertain such disputes, which all are unconnected with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act . Thus, the Tribunal, on receipt of any claim petition, at the first instance, must examine, whether the policy coverage is with reference to the Motor 7/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 Vehicles Act or with reference to certain benefits, which is unconnected with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act . Only if it is a compensation, which is agreed under the policy and the claim petition is filed, claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act , then alone, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would get jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and decide the issues, but not otherwise. Therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are duty bound to examine the nature of the policy as well as the terms and conditions of the contract, at the first instance, before adjudicating the issues with reference to the grant of compensation. In all such cases, the issue regarding the maintainability is to be taken as a preliminary issue and only after deciding the preliminary issue, the other issues can be taken up for consideration by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In the event of adjudicating all the issues together, undoubtedly, the same would cause prejudice to the claimant also in view of the fact that the long pendency of the claim petition would also deprive the claimants from claiming the benefit under the personal accident policy. Contrarily, if the issue regarding maintainability is decided, at the first instance, then the claimants will get an opportunity to approach the competent forum for the purpose of claiming the 8/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 benefit of personal accident policy and the Tribunals are bound to consider all these aspects, in view of the fact that all these are beneficial provisions and the policy is also for the benefit of the affected person. Thus, the Courts must be doubly cautious in entertaining such claim petitions.

10. The judgments relied on before the Claims Tribunal may not have relevance with reference to the facts and circumstances in the present case on hand and this apart, the powers conferred on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not been elaborately adjudicated by the Courts in that judgment. When there is a provision to entertain a claim petition in respect of the policies, under the Motor Vehicles Act , then the other policies, which all are unconnected with the Act, cannot be entertained by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the beneficiary of such policies are bound to approach the competent Forum for the purpose of getting the benefit.

11. This being the factum established, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction and entertained the claim petition in violation of the Provisions of the Motor 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 Vehicles Act . It is an admitted fact that the Tribunal granted compensation based on the personal accident policy, which cannot be granted.

12. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2013 is set aside and consequently, C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 stands allowed. It is made clear that the respondents/claimants are at liberty to approach the competent Forum for the purpose of claiming benefits under the personal accident policy by following the procedures as contemplated. The awarded amount already deposited by the appellant/Tribunal is to be reimbursed. In this regard, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the said amount by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be made through RTGS. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.03.2020 Index : Yes Speaking order Kak 10/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 To

1.The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.

2.The Special Sub Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Tiruvannamalai.

11/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J., Kak C.M.A.No.1017 of 2016 12.03.2020 12/12 http://www.judis.nic.in