submitted that, the respondents 1 and 2 claims that as per policy, the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 and filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation, which is not sustainable. If the respondents 1 and 2 filed claim petition u/s 163A of the MV Act and as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Ors Vs. The United India Insurance Company and Ors. and Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2020 (1) CTC 443 and 2009 (2) TN MAC 169, wherein the Apex Court held that if the deceased is not owner of the motorcycle and if he borrowed the motorcycle from the real owner, the deceased cannot be held to be an employee or owner of the motorcycle although he was an authorised driver of the motorcycle. Section 163A of the Act clearly states that the liability to pay the compensation upon the owner of the vehicle, the owner cannot both be a claimant and a tort-feasor, therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased, who had steps into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle would not claim compensation u/s the 163A of the Act. In view of the above categorical decision rendered by the Apex Court, which was followed by the learned single judge of this Court in the case reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 593 , the award passed by the Tribunal necessarily has to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.
