UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RAJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter has been listed for final disposal for the past four hearings in two months, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has not appeared.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that, it is the case, where the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company, when admittedly, the tort-feasor is the claimant and he had no driving license to ride the two wheeler. The Tribunal has rightly referred the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the rider of the motor vehicle step into the shoes of the owner and there is no contractual liability on the part of the insurer to pay the owner of the vehicle, who is the tort-feasor. Despite referring the said judgment, the Tribunal has considered the claimant as a third party, which is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma case referred above and Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd and another, 2020 1 TNMAC 1 (SC). Therefore, the award warrants interference in sofar as liability.

(3.) It is the case where the claimant while riding the two wheeler TVS XL Super bearing Reg.No.TN 48 V 9433 dashed against the Transport Corporation bus and sustained injury. The claimant has stated that while he was riding the TVS XL Super owned by the first respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent near Notchiam Privu Road on Trichy to Notchiam Privu Road dashed against the Transport Corporation Bus bearing Reg.No.TML 5845, as a result, he was thrown out from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. The claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the claimant has asserted that his monthly income is around Rs.6000/-. Therefore, the claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the petition under Section 163A is not maintainable, since the claimant is not earning income less than Rs.40,000/- p.a. Further, the claimant has no driving license and he is the tort-feasor and he has colluded against the transport corporation bus due to his rash and negligent driving.