JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 24.03.2007 made in MCOP No.584 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First Additional Subordinate Court Erode) Erode District.) 1. Challenging the liability fixed on the appellant/Insurance Company vide Award dated 24.03.2007 made in MCOP No.584 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First Additional Subordinate Court Erode) Erode District, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 2.1. On 08.04.2001 at about 1.45 hrs, when the claimant was walking from the North to South direction in P.N.Road in front of Muniappan Kovil at the extreme left side, the 2nd respondent drove the Yamaha RX135 Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN39 B 1788 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and also sustained fractures in his head, right shoulder and neck. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Tiruppur for treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Palaniandi Mudaliyar Memorial Hospital, Salem for better treatment. Due to the above injuries sustained by the claimant, he filed a claim petition seeking for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in MCOP No.584 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First Additional Subordinate Court Erode) Erode District. 2.2. In the claim petition, the Insurance Company had filed its counter statement, denying all the averments made by the claimant. It is averred by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the claimant and there was no insurance cover for the offending motorcycle on that date of accident and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 2.3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and on the side of the claimant, eleven (11) documents were marked as exhibits Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. 2.4. The Tribunal, upon examining Ex.A.3-Wound Certificate, has clearly mentioned that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of occurrence of accident and therefore, held that the claimant has also contributed to the accident. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. 2.4. The Tribunal, upon examining Ex.A.3-Wound Certificate, has clearly mentioned that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of occurrence of accident and therefore, held that the claimant has also contributed to the accident. Further, the Tribunal, by referring to the earlier decision of this Court made in CMA.No.113 of 2006 dated 23.1.2006, wherein this Court has held that, when a person drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and met with an accident, then, he cannot be considered on par with other persons who had been a victim of accident. Following the above dictum laid down by this Court, the Tribunal, held that the claimant is entitled to the compensation, only in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation for a sum of Rs.21,496/- [Rs.10,000/- for grievous injuries; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5000/- for Extra nourishment and Rs.1496/- for medical expenses], vide Award dated 24.03.2007 made in MCOP No.584 of 2005. 3. Aggrieved against such fixation of liability on the appellant/Insurance Company vide Award dated 24.03.2007 made in MCOP No.584 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First Additional Subordinate Court Erode) Erode District, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed. 4. In the present case on hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant, because the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. Further, the vehicle was not covered by a policy issued by the appellant on the date of accident, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company also submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report (Ex.A5) and therefore, prayed for setting aside the Award dated 24.03.2007 made in MCOP No.584 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First Additional Subordinate Court Erode) Erode District, thereby allowing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. 5. A perusal of the Insurance Policy shows that there is insurance coverage only for the period starting from 11.04.2001 to 10.04.2002, but the alleged accident had taken place on 08.04.2001, which does not fall within the above period. Hence, it is inferred that the offending vehicle driven by the second respondent, is not covered by the insurance policy on the said date of occurrence of the accident. In view of the same, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation on behalf of the second respondent. Moreover, from the medical report- Ex.A.3-Wound Certificate, it is seen that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of occurrence of accident the claimant. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability on the insurance company. Therefore, the said findings of the Tribunal needs to be interfered. Accordingly, the liability fixed on the appellant/Insurance Company alone is set aside. However, the 2nd respondent/driver of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent/owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant. 7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.21,496/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. The Award of the Tribunal remains unaltered in all other aspects. The 2nd respondent/driver of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent/owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP No.584 of 2005. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.