» IN THE HON>BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fC). N0,^-% OF 2010 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.4,17.500/4 APPEAL UNDER SECTTON 173 OPTtiE MQTORVEHICLESACT. 1988. llvisioii Bsi APPELLANTS (NON-APPEJCANT N0.1) v^ ^:^ .-'ftESPONDENTS: (APPLTCATTTNO. 1) Versus (An3LICANTN0.2) (APn.ICANTNO.3) 3. (APPLfCANT N0.4) (APFLICANT N0.5) 5. .6) 6. United fiadia Tnsurance Company Lmiited, TTirough- Branch Manager, BrancIi-Ofiice, Brahm road, Ambikapur, Distt.-Surguja (CG) Rajdeo Vishwkarma, S/o- Rameshwar Vishwlcarma, aged- 6(tyears, R/o—SurajpurWard No.6, P.S. 8s Tah. Suqpur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) Sona Devi, Wd/o- Late Ramakant, Aged-32 years, Pinki Kumari, D/O-Late Ramakant Vishwkarma , Aged- 15 Years, Occupatian- Student. RmM Kumari, D/0- Late Ramakant Vishwkarma, aged- lOyears, Occupation-Studenf. ft-iyanka Kumari, D/0- Late Ramakant Vishwfcaema, aged- o years, Occupation-Student. Jaishankar, 8/0- Late Kamakant Vishwkarma, aged- 4 years, Kesponaent no.3 to 6 are ininor, tnrougn-tneir motner- Sona Devi Wd/0-L^te Ramakant Vishwkarma p^espondent No.3). Respondent No.2 to 6 all are R/O-Surajpur/Ward No.4, P.S. & Tah.-Surajpur, Distt.- Surguja(CG) € (NON-APPLICANTN0.2) 7. Prahlad Rai Agrawal, S/0-Sadhuram Agrawal, R/o-Neharu Park Road Surajpur, Dsitt.-Surguja (C.G.) '^? OF DiyiSIONBENCH: MR. M.A.rdNo; 678^010 United India Insyrance Co. Vs ; : . .: • : . Rajdeo Vjshwakarma& olfters mr. Dashrath ^pta;^^^^^ Mr.'D.N.Projapati, Advocate for the rcsp^ OR^cR(Opaiy ^thMay, 2011) P®rI.M. .•J. :1. This appea? has. been fiJed by 'the appeliant-WInsurance 'CompQny aQainst. the'. impugned award dated 29.01.20i0 passed by the jearned Motor Accident Ciaims. .Trlbuna!, (FTC),' Pratappur. Distrjct. Surguja (C.&) in . CJaim. No.l4/2Q09 so faras;it relates t^ majntainab 2. There was permjssion u7s 170 oftheMotorVehjcies.A.ct, 1988 to chaltenge tha.quantum.partalso, 3.. Brief ;facts of the case/ QS. per version of the ^ cJaimants, are that on i2<02.2008 respondent No.7, who wis the Qwner of motor ^hiefe bearing registration number C^l5-C-9739, had engaged the deceased Ramakant Vjshimkarma far repair work of an ete^ work :he gaye the said motorcycie to him. After comptetjon of the work^^^^^w^ Ramakant ^as returning to Surajpur abngwith one Bablu Verma by the motorcycje, on the ^ay; an unknown red-coloured truck, wh ich bcjng driven jn aTash and:,negii9€nTmanner'by its drivB •from backsideas a result of'which said Ramakont.Vjshwakarma •and pjlijon rjd^r Babiu Verma fel! clown and susftijned gnBvous injuri^s, He was admitted m the bistnct Hospital, Ambjkapur where he died during the course of treatment. The claimants beina the dependents /' legal representatives of the deceased had filed daim petition u/s 16.3-A of the (2) .^,: Motor Vehicles Act, 19 Rs.5,42,500/- under various heads. 4. The tearned Cfoims Tribunal^^^^^^^p^^ cfamiants and awarded a sum of R^4yl7,500/UB as compensation and fastened the iiab j 1ity on the QDpeliant-Insurance CQrnpany ^o ^xtisfv the same< 5- We have heard iearned counsei for the parties, We have perused the jmpygned oiward as well as the records of the Claims Tribunal 6. In the presentcase it is an admitted fect thatthe motorcycle did not bebng to the deceased* He horrowed the same frlom jts real owncr i,e, respondentNo.ZhereJnandassuch, 1fte deceased stepped into theshoes of /the oiwn@r.' ; . . . •; . . .• :'. . "' ' ' .' ~ 7. in the matter of Insyrancc. Company •,Ltd. Vs. Rajng reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 l+ie Hon'bie Supreme Court has heid that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehjctes Act, 1988 cannot be said to have any appiicatjon in refiard to anjsccident wher'ein the owner of the motor veh icie himseif is involved, , It was further hdd that the iiabjlity under Section 163-A of the Act is oniv on the owne^^^^^ ^ be both, a clajmant as aJso a ^cipient, fle of the could riot hav^ mainl^ined a claim in terms of Sectjon 163-A Qfthe Atet< 8. The Mon'ble Supreme Court in Para-21 & 22 of the judQment delivered in the. mattBr 'of & aiiother Vs. :-.Un§t€dIndio Insyrance Company Umlted reported in (2009) 13 5CC 710 has heid thus:- "2L In our considered opinion, the rQtio of the dedsion in C?r^?^/ In^urunce €u. LM ca$e \^ d^or^ G^plicable TO the facts of the pre^ent case. In the present case, the deceased wa^ not the owner of the riiotorbJke in question, He borrowed the said motorbike from its real own6r, The cannot be held to be an empfoyee of the^owner of the motorbike aithough he was authorized to driv^ th©said vehicie by its owner und, therefore, he wouid step into the shoes of the of the mdtorbjke. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbeforc^ A bare perusal of the said provision wouId make Jt exp SicitiY clear that persons iite the deceased in the pre^n+ would step into ftie shoes of the owner of the veh icle* 22, In a case wherein the yjctim died or where he was permanentlv disabled due to cui accident arising Qut of the aforesaid motor vehicle In that event the liabiiity to make payment of the €^l:r .^ .A, comp€nsdti|||||^||n^::llie''.m|u^r^^ the owner, as'the. ca^^ may be; as^r^ But if it js proveQ that th^; drj^er is the o^ner of the rriiotor vehicfe, in that case the owner CQUld^nothirnselfbea reapient of compensation as the iiability to^^^e same is on him^^^^T^^^ ciear on a r^clj^ of Sectiv^ 163-A of the MVA< Accordingly/the iega! representatiyes ofthe deceased who hcxw stepped into ifie shoes of-1rKe own^r o^ th^^^m have claim^Q GoinDensatjQrt^ Onder Section 163-S°A o'f 'thc. MVA/' 9. Thus, in view of the sstfled posifion of iaw^-^ are o^^ opin'on that the ciajmants; who are tegai r^presentatjves of the dece who jnto the shoes of the owner of the^^^^^m^ questjon, could not have claimed comD€nsation.:underScction l63"KA of the Act. 10.In the result, the aDpeal succeeds and the;awGrd d'Qted 29.01.2010 passed by the Ciaims Trjbunal in Clatm Casg No.l4/20Q9 is set aside. If any amount of compensation js .;deposjt€:d by the' aDptettantwJth- the Ciaims Tribunal and the has been withdrawn by the claimants, then the same would be recoverable by thedppeilant-InsurQn^ 11. Mowever, it js;'made :€lear..that this •arder:.;wil!^ the claimants' to move an appiication^under Section l63;:of'th€Act i-e, scheme for payment of' compensation jn'osse of hit and run motor accidents. Ig.Certlfied copy as per rutes. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge