FAO No.525 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.525 of 2008 Date of Decision. 23.07.2010 Gobind Singh s/o Amir Singh, r/o VPO Bhirdana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad (owner of the vehicle motor cycle Hero Honda CD 100 bearing chassis No.04JI3E00830.) .........Appellant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its branch Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fetehabad others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for for the appellant. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. 2. FAO No.4493 of 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Fatehabad through Shri Baljeet Singh, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17, Chandigarh .........Appellant Versus Smt. Renu Bala wd/o Mohan Lal s/o Sharwan resident of ward no.15, near Gulnar Cinema, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fetehabad and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same award. The claim FAO No.525 of 2008 -2- had been made by persons as legal representatives of the deceased Mohan Lal, who died in a motor accident by the use of a motor cycle borrowed from the appellant in FAO No.525 of 2008. The petition had been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal determined a compensation of Rs.4,29,400/- as payable and directed the owner of the vehicle and the insurer to be jointly liable for the claim. While the owner is aggrieved about a direction for making him jointly liable with the insurer, the insurance company is in appeal in FAO No.4493 of 2007 contending that the insurance company cannot be made liable for an accident that was the result of the negligence of the driving of the deceased himself. 2. The issue as to whether it is possible to make the insurer liable in an accident under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by a person, who was boarded the vehicle from the owner has been answered squarely by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an insurer only covers the risk for the insured and if the driver of the vehicle was borrowing the vehicle from the insured, he merely steps into the shoes of the insured and the question of covering the risk for the insured or his representative for his own negligence does not arise. In Ningamma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even if Section 163-A is not applicable, the Court shall consider the case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such a contingency would arise if there is any other vehicle, which is involved and there is the duty for the Court to see whether the other vehicle's owner or FAO No.525 of 2008 -3- the insurer could be made liable. This would not apply to a situation where the driver of the vehicle himself has been guilty of negligence and there is no other person who can answer the claim, even if the application were to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim under Section 163-A was, therefore, not tenable in law. The insurer could not have been made liable to make the payment nor was the owner of the motor cycle, who had lent the vehicle to the claimants be answerable for the claim. The award of the Tribunal granting compensation under Section 163-A cannot be sustained and it is set aside. 3. The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle is, therefore, allowed and for the same reason the appeal filed by the insurer is also allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 23, 2010 Pankaj*