IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No /2005 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^ ^ ^a' f /.-y .' ^/ ^' S v ^^ SteSgMB BeBsfe 1. Anuradha, Widow of Ram Milan, Aged about 25 years. 2. Manoj Kumar, S/o. Ram Milan Aged about 07 years. 3. Anjali Kumari, D/o. Ram Milan, Aged about 05 years. 4. Ruby, D/o. Ram Milan, Aged about 02 years. Appellant No. 2 to 4 are Minors through Guardian Mother Appellant No.l All are resident of village Sonhat, P.S. - Sonhat, Dlstrict Koriya (C.G.) Presently Resident of Village Agastpur, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Bhaiyalal, S/o.Gondal, Aged f about 50 years, R/o. village Budar, P.S. Patna, The-Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) (OWNER) - <- 2.^/ United India Insurance Company Ltd, Throygh Branch Manager', Branch Office- Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) (INSORER) ^ - APPE7YL U/S. 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT i;vy ^ ' -^4^ i-r; .; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'bie Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra IVIiscellaneous Appeal No.1105 of 2005 Ap&eilants versus Resoondents Anuradha and others Bhaiyalal and another Present: Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MQtorVehiclesA_ct ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th February, 201 1) Per I.IVI. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants chaiienging the award dated 30-4-2005 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surguja in Claim Case No.39/2003. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, jn short, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 16-11-2002, at about 9 P.M., deceased Ram Milan and another person Suresh were going along with non-claimant No.1 Bhaiyalal from Sonhat to Baikunthpur on Bhaiyalal's motor cycle. Bajaj Boxer 2001 Model bearing engine No.01290 and chassis No.65775. The m'otor cycle was being driven by its owner Bhaiyalal. Due to rash and negligent driving of the mdtor cycle, it met with an accident, as a result of which, Ram Milan d!ll.LiilES!ilc'lll(1 j^-r:--K;l-E ^' ~y" 'y"^. ?:... •^ ' ^.. % • :'~11 •.•W.S-^ .1;.' "'';?' .,iii;! Hillil and Suresh died on the spot. The claimants, i.e., wife, son and two daughters of the deceased Ram Milan preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunat dismissed the claim petition preferred by the claimants. 5. The Claims Tribunal has given a finding that the motor cycle was being driven by the dsceased Ram Milan. Ram Milan, the driver of the motor cycle and pillion rider Suresh were son-in-laws of Bhaiyalat, the owner of the motor cycle. However, an appeal was filed by the claimants of the pillion rider Suresh but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a cross-objection in case the owner of the mator cycle, against whom liability to pay compensation of Rs.6,19,000/- has been fixed in the claim petitjon filed by the claimants of the pillion rider Suresh, files an appeal but no appeal has been filed. 6. The deceased Ram Milan was driving the motor cycle borrowing from non-claimant No.1 Bhaiyalal, the real owner of the motor cycle. The motor cycle belonged to non-claimant No.1, therefore, the deceased Ram Milan stepped into the shoes of the owner. FuTther, it is proved that the deceased Ram Milan was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi and others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, has held that Section 163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application » ^T^) in regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. It was further held that the liability under Section 163-A of the Act is only on the owner of the vehicle since a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-AoftheAct. 8. Undisputedly, the deceased was not the owner of the motor cycle. He borrowed the motor cycle from its real owner. He cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of the motor cycle although he was authorized to drive the motor cycle by its owner and, therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motor cycle. 9. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to the 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 of the Act. But, if it is proved that the driver is the ownerof the motor vehicle, in that case, the owner could not himself be a reeipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same would be on him, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Gourt in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710. -v-- 10. In the instant case, it may be noticed that the owner of the motor cycle, as already mentioned above, was the father-in-law of both the occupants of the motor cycle, i.e., the driver as well as the t > 1 iiiIlinTil^^.-^i^i^^iijl^i:^ l:$s:|P Qopal pillion rider. Both have died and, therefore, both the daughters of the owner have become widow. The deceased Ram Milan was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The claim petition preferred by the claimants of the deceased Ram Milan was dismissed. The claimants of the pillion rider Suresh were awarded compensation holding liability to pay the same upon the father ofthe claimant widow. 11. We have perused the reeord of the Claims Tribunal and the findings arrived at by it. We found no illegality and irregularity or manifest error of law in the impugned award, therefore, the instant miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- i ,_,.,.._.^^..-^.-^-..--------——--—- Judge prashantKuina&Nishra Judge 9