c ^- -^9-- a . o ^,,, ss Ogv^slOl'EI@| IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH SPUR } M APPELLANT Owner .A(C)No.go^ / 2010 B ^ (^^ .^& ...-•:^y ^.••••:.'.l^:'l^ ^fr< -.^" •<\^^ ^'" ..••'' ^•"'^ r1"-" ^^-" 1 murag Singh S/o- Ankalu Maram Pisda Aged about 42 years, Occupation- Teacher, R/o- village Dongargarh, At present working as Teacher in village Aasra, Vikashkhand Dongargoan, Dist- Rajnandgoan Versus RESPONDENTS (Claimants) ,,..-——^^ f ": ^^^ z .a..y^^ fc,^.t,< ^•/ :'%^ ~^^^^^ i. D- Smt. Rekha Mariya W/o Dwarika Prasad Mariya Aged about 28 years ^ 2) Bhupesh Kumar S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Mariya Aged about 07 years, student ^ 3) Kumari Gunjeeta D/o Late Dwarika Prasad Mariya Student 1.) Pushpank, S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Mariya, Aged about 1-1/2 years 5) Smt. Roopouteen Bai W/o Late Itwariram Mariya, Aged about 60 years Respondents 2, 3 & 4 are minor, represented though their legal guardian, mother Smt. Rekha Mariya All R/o village Basantpur, Ward No-38, Tehsil/Dist- Rajnandgoan 9961- 110V S3-101H3A yOlOIAI 3H1 JO £2.1- S/n -IVSddV ^ ,\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 606 of 2010 Appellant Anurag Singh Versus Respondents Smt. Rekha Mariya 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: HonlDle Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon?ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ ^Nl^ Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Shri V. K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER fOral) ( Passed on this 9th day of December, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against the impugned award dated 19.4.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 47/2008, awarding compensation to the tune ofRs. 5,55,400/-. 2 . We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the legal heirs of the deceased Dwarika Prasad Maria/claimants filed a claim case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 19,50,OOO/- under various heads on the ground that on 8.2.2008 when the deceased was returning to his home at Basantpur by the motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 08 ZE/3506, near Amlidih Dhanlaxmi paper mill he met with an accident and later on succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident. The owner of the motorcycle was the ^ non-applicant/present appellant. The claimants are th^ legal^bfeirs of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle as he borrowed from the owner. There was no insurance policy of the vehicle in question. 4. Learned Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence passed the impugned award, directing the non-applicant/appellant/ owner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,55,400/- as compensation along with interest to the claimants. 5. It is well settled law that the person who borrowed the vehicle (raotorcycle) from the owner steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and thus cannot claiin compensation from himself/Qwner. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajni Devi and others (2008) 5 SCC 736 the Apex Court has held that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be said to have any application in regard to an accident wherein the owner of fhe motor vehicle himself is involved. In the instant case/the deceased was not the owner of the motorcycle in question. He borrowed the motorcycle from its real owner. Therefore, he can be neither a third party nor can be said to be the employee of the owner of the motorcycle. He was only authorized to use/drive the motorcycle by its owner and therefore he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. 6. In the case on hand the claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under : "163 A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the .;7-i '"••; ^ 1 %^». 1 ^SgK-SS,. ••'^ '%, %^y •^^^^ PINI»11^ motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability?? shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. 7. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 would make it explicitly clear that the person, like the deceased in the present case, would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In the case of Nigamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2009) 13 SCC 710, following the decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajni Devi and others (supra), the Hon?ble Apex Court has held as under : <(22. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liabtlity to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163- A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased .^.^^ ^^t. "^N ;^ ^ ^K:l^":;,. // ^•'S^y^"' 4 \ who have stepped into the shoes of the owner o^ thej»6tor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-AoftheMVA. 23. When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances ofthe present case.w 8. A bare perusal of Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 would show that the liabilily to pay the compensation under Section 163-A is either on the owner or the authorized insurer. In the instant case, since the vehicle was not insured, the liability upon the owner is to be considered. But the owner cannot claim compensation from himself. 9. In view of the above, awarding compensation under Section 163-A oftheAct, 1988 by the Tribunal to the claimants of the deceased, holding liability of the owner is against the well settled provisions oflaw and thus, the impugned award dated 19.4.2010 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set-aside. 10. The appeal is allowed. It is held that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, filed by the claimants/respondents before the Tribunal was not maintainable. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge