Tata Aig General Insurance Company ... vs C.Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 8197 Mad

Madras High Court

Tata Aig General Insurance Company ... vs C.Kumar on 3 June, 2024

Author: Abdul Quddhose

Bench: Abdul Quddhose

                                                                           C.M.A.No.2156 of 2022

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 03.06.2024

                                                          CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                 C.M.A.No.2156 of 2022

                     TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
                     1st Floor, Rajendra Building,
                     No.10A, Duraisami Pillai Street,
                     West Thambaram, Chennai.                    .. Appellant


                                                              Vs


                     1.C.Kumar
                     2.Irudayadass                                        .. Respondents

                                  Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 25.04.2022,
                     made in M.C.O.P.No.220 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident
                     Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Villupuram@Kallakurichi.


                                       For Appellant          : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
                                                              for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

                                       For Respondents        : No appearance




                                                         JUDGMENT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging

its liability to pay compensation to the first respondent/claimant on the

following grounds:-

(a) The Tribunal has erred in entertaining a claim under Section

163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the first respondent/claimant

was a tortfeasor, who was driving the vehicle himself, and suffered

accident and therefore, no claim for compensation is maintainable in law.

(b) The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the owner of the

vehicle has no liability in law on account of the fact that the injuries have

been sustained by the rider himself, who steps into the shoes of the owner

in using the vehicle.

(c) The Tribunal has erroneously held that under Section 163A of

the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim of the first respondent/claimant is

maintainable, despite the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another

[2020 ACJ 627], followed by subsequent decisions, has consistently held

otherwise.

2. The following facts are not in dispute:-

(a) The first respondent/claimant had borrowed the vehicle from

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the second respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle (insured), and he

himself is a tortfeasor, as seen from the FIR, marked as Ex.P1.

(b) The claim for compensation has been made by the first

respondent/claimant under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. It is settled law that since the first respondent/claimant has

borrowed the vehicle from the owner, he steps into the shoes of the

owner. Being a tortfeasor himself, the first respondent/claimant cannot

claim compensation from the appellant Insurance Company even under

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, since the insurance policy does

not enable the first respondent/claimant to claim compensation from the

appellant insurance company.

4. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ramkhiladi's case (cited supra), the claim of the nature made by the

first respondent/claimant in the instant case is not maintainable under

law, as he is not a third party, since he has borrowed the vehicle from the

insured and further he is also a tortfeasor as seen from the FIR, marked as

Ex.P1. Further, the Tribunal has erroneously in the impugned award,

without any basis and contrary to law, held that Section 163A of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Motor Vehicles Act gets attracted for the claim made by the first

respondent/claimant.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view

that the impugned award is perverse and is contrary to the settled law and

no compensation can be paid to the first respondent/claimant, since the

first respondent/claimant is not a third party as he has stepped into the

shoes of the owner in view of the undisputed fact that he had borrowed

the vehicle from the second respondent/owner (insured).

6. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No Costs. C.M.P.No.16729 of 2022 is

closed.

03.06.2024 Index: yes/no Neutral citation: yes/no rkm

To

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

III Additional District Judge, Kllakurichi.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

rkm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

03.06.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis