A”A/ @ IN THE HIGH wURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CEH-IATTISGARH) M.A. Ncg’ZfQE /2oo2 Byggnesh Ram BanC‘xhe, ageé about 41;‘ years , S/o. Kanwal Singh Bandhe, R/D. Kurud Railway swtion P.O. Charmidiya, P.S. Kurud Tahsil and Disi‘n‘Z. Raipur {C,CT,). App l icam": / y C laima’n‘i; ,V/s, 1 ésp n$e£xf.§,(wf" ,//1. Ravishahkar S/o. Sundarlal, Non—aljplicants B/o 133'. Kurud Kurud, Railway ?ah. ana S’ca’cion Distt. P éa'ipur 0 Charmudi (C.G. . , “2. The Oriental Insurance C0.Ltd., Branch Office Dhamtari, Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachharichauk, Jail Road, Raipur .(C.G.).‘ w V Miscmmmmw APEEAL Imam Swim; 173 oi? MOTOR VEHCLE ACT 198$. M/ Valmatmn 9f «Empcal ; 5,QQ,QOO/~' \X ..-uoZoi / ‘E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA. No. 408 of 2002 APFEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice LM. Quddusi & Hon’ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. iPresenti : Shri Arjun Singroui, Advocate for the appellant. ORAL ORDER I (Passed‘on 21“ day 0f September, 2910) Per : LM. Quddusi, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the award dated 28.01.2002, passed by the llnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal‘) 1 in claim case No. 57/01 dismissing the claim petition of the claimant. Brief facts of the case are that, on 12.11.1996, while the appellant was going to Ganeshpur from Kurud by motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-23-L-5835, the appellant lost his balance and fell down as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries. . The claimant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,24,000/- for the said accident. / / APPLICANT ’ Ganesh Ram Bandhe Claimant Versus RESPONDENTS : Ravishankar & Another 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence Ied by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions iof the parties, dismissed the claim petition preferred by the appellant. 5. lWe have perused the record of the Tribunal which shows that the claimant i.e. driver was not owner of the vehicle in question. §He borrowed the said vehicle from its real owner. The i deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the x t 1 motor vehicle although he was authorized to drive the said l vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the r shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle. Accordingly, the legal . representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the ‘ shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. 6. The Supreme Court in case of Ningamma & Another v. United lndia Insurance Co. Ltd.‘ has observed in para 18 & 19 as under : “18. ln the case of Oriental insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Others (2008) 5 SCC-736, wherein one of us, namely Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. lt was also held in the said decision that where, howeVer, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. lt was held in the said decision that Section 163A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an s accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle/ ’ 2009 AIR scw 4916 himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The iiabiiity under Section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. ln the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of’the owner of the motorbike. 19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. ln 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 liability 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 theliability 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 who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA. 7. In view of above, the claim petition was in-fact not maintainable, the same is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. % Sd/- I.M. QUDDUSI Judge