RIGHTS OF LEGALHEIRS OF TORTFEASORS TO MAINTAIN CLAIM PETITION UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

 

RIGHTS OF LEGALHEIRS OF TORTFEASORS TO MAINTAIN CLAIM PETITION UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

Whether legal heirs of tortfeasors is entitled to claim compensation under sec.166 of motor vehicles act. The answer is NO.  This aspect has been clearly discussed in Divisional manager, Oriental insurance co.ltd., -VS- kuppusamy  and another. 2021 (1) TNMAC 523.

The brief of the case is as follows:

According to Respondents, on 5/10/2012 at about 1.30 hours (midnight) while the deceased vignesh was driving the TATA ACE tempo bearing regn.no. KA 51 A 4857 on Hosur – Thally road junction near sangam steel company, the driver of the TATA ACE lost control and dashed on the right side road tree and caused the accident. In the accident, the said vignesh sustained multiple grievous injuries in his head and all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the said vignesh was taken to government hospital, Hosur for the first aid treatment. Thereafter he was taken to Ashok hospital, Hosur for further treatment and various hospitals and inspite of the treatment he was succumbed to injuries on 9/10/12. Therefore the Respondents being parents of the deceased filed the above said claim petition under sec 163 A of the motor vehicles Act, against the appellant insurance company, being the insurer of TATA Ace.

The appellant insurance company being the insurer of the TATA ACE filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the Respondents. The Respondents have to prove that the policy issued by the appellant for the TATA Ace bearing regn.no. KA 51 A 4857, and was in force during the period of accident, as the policy was not yet confirmed. In the FIR it was mentioned that the deceased only drove the TATA Ace in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and no other vehicles are involved in the alleged accident and the deceased was a tortfeasor. From the policy papers it is seen that there was a limited coverage available for the personal accident for owner – driver – GR – 36 A. The personal accident cover has been issued under section III for the owner – Driver(CSI) Rs.2,00,000/ only. Hence the legal representatives are legally entitled to limited coverage of Rs.2,00,000/ only under the contractual liability and there was no cover for the owner under the statutory liability.

The contractual liability arose under the policy could be claimed by the claimants from the insurance company by filing claim forms. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of death of the driver cum owner  of the impugned vehicle. The alleged accident was held due to own tort of the deceased. Hence, there shall be no statutory liability under the motor vehicles act cast on the insurance company. There shall not be any claim in respect of own damage of the insured vehicle before the tribunal. The claim form in respect of personal accident coverage and claim form in respect of vehicle damage have been submitted by the claimants before the insurance company and the same have been denied by the insurance company. The claim petition has to be dismissed on the ground of no jurisdiction to entertain own tort claim and own damage claim and there shall be no statutory liability. The respondents have to prove that they are the legalheirs of the deceased by producing valid documents.

The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contented that the Respondents are not entitled to  maintain claim petition against the appellant when the deceased owner – cum – driver was the tortfeasor. The tribunal erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant. The tribunal failed to consider that Appellant – insurer of the TATA Ace has no statutory liability the cover the deceased – insured and if at all the insurer can be held liable only to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/ under personal accident cover issued under policy. The tribunal erred in holding the appellant is liable to pay the compensation under sec 166 of the motor vehicles act without considering the insurance policy between the appellant and insured is contractual in nature and the appellant is liable only to the extent admitted under the policy.

From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the case of the Respondents that their son Vignesh was owner cum driver of the TATA Ace bearing regn.no. KA 51 A 4857. On the date o accident, while driving TATA Ace, their son vignesh lost control of the vehicle and dashed on the tree on the right side of the road and sustained injuries and died.FIR was registered against deceased vignesh. The accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. When the deceased is a tortfeasor, his legalheirs are not entitled to maintain claim petition under sec 163 A or 166 of MV act. When the claim is under sec. 166, the claimants have to prove negligence on the part of the other party. In the present case no other vehicle involved in the accident, and the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence legalheirs of the deceased are not entitled to claim compensation. The liability of the  insurer is only to indemnify the insured with regard to the claims made by the third party.