.^\-:T.^V^^-^'\--V^-^^'^^•^^^-^^ V ?^.^^L^^/-.<r\^^^^-^.^^^^'^^;./^ l;til: INTHEHIGHCC^UR'ItOFCHHATTISGrARHATB^ INO.^, MISe.APPEALTCINO. n ^- PELLANTS :K..: ^- ^' ^•S^r ^-••••^•^'-K--- /2007rDB1 Smt. Shakun Kusfawalia, aged abouf 44 years widow of late Laxminarayan Kushwa^ 2^<-Ku. Savitri Kyshwafaa, aged 14 years, ^ D/o late JLaxmi^arayan Kushwaha. i 3^ Ghansllyam^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I^ yeors^^^^^^^^^^^^ Kushwaha. 1 Kushwaha, aged about 20 late ILaxminarayan: 4. ^ years, S/o Kushwaha. w^ ..-•"•* Appellant No. 2 & 13 are^^^^^^^^l^ through mother Smt. Shakun KushwaEha. All are resident of jNariyal Kothi, Qoyatbaiid^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bilaspx-ir[C.G.]. CLAIMANTS VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- Dhaniram S/o not laiown^^V Owner.VehicleNo.CH-14 0^3452, R/o Byauri, near hospital, Distnct Aniippur. 2^^'Phe Oriental Insura|nce Conipany ymited, through) Divisional Manager, BpcalAddress-^^^^^^^m^^^ High Court, Bilasjpur, DisfriGt Bilaspur[C.G.] MISC.APPEALUl ERSE<^bN'^ VEHICLEACT :--;IE ^ (— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON*BLB I.M. QUDDU8I 8s PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ, M. A(Cl No. 636 OP 2007 Vs. MI8C. APPEALS U/8 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 v APPEARANCB: Mr. M, K, Bhaduri, counsel for the appeUaats. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2< JUDGMBNT (ORALl (04.01.2011) Per I.M. QUDDU8I. J. 1. 2. This appeal has been filed by fhe CIaunaats agamst fhe awaid dated 17.01.2007 passed by IX AddL Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Bilaspiu- (C.G) ia Claim Case Np. 163/2005 disinissiag fhe clafcm offhe appellants, i Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claitDLaats are fhat fhe appellaats are inofher, sister and brother of fhe deceased Suml Kushwaha. On 05.07.2005 fhe deceased was goiag to Manvalu by driviag fhe Motorcycle bearmg Regn.No.C.Q.14-C/3452 owned by respondeat no.l Dhaairaai aoM iasured wifh respoxident no. 2. Raai Siagh Thakur was\sitting as a PiUion rider. On the way atabout ^ 11.00 a,m., fti^ said motorcycle met with an accident near viUage Paadad, as a rcsult ofwhich fhe deceased succtunbed to fhe uyunes sustamed by him ia fhe said aecident iI. \- APPELLANT8 Smt Sakun Kushwaha aad ofhers RE8PONDENTS 1 Dhaairam aad aaofher fy^ "\..- 3. The claunaats bemg legal representatives of the deceased filed aa appUcation before the Tribunal u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimiag compensation to fhe tune of Rs.13,45,000/- for fhe deafh of deceased ia fhe said accident. 4. The Clauns Tribunal after considering the material on recoxd aad the arguments advanced by learaed counsel for fhe Y. . . • respective parties; disniissed fhe claioi petition, 5. The deceased borrowed the laotor cycle froia the owner wifh his consent aad stepped iato fhe shoes ofthe owner. 6. Hpa'ble ffae Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insuf^since Company I^td., Vs. Keifnidevi; reported in (2008) S 9CC 736 has held fhat section 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act 1988 cannot be said to have any appUcation ia rcgard to aa accident whereia fhe owner of the inotor veNcle hiniself is iavolved. It was further held fhat fhe UabiUty u/s 163-A of fhe Act is only on fhe owner of fhe vehicle siace a person caanot be bofh, a claunaat as also a recipient, fhe heirs of the deceased could not have maiatained a clami ia terms of Section 163-A ofthe Act. 7. Furfher in case of Nlfwemmw. ahd an.other Vs. BTnifed Jndte Jnsttranee Comoanw Limtted reported (in 2009 f13) SCC 710 fhe Siipreme Court whUe referriag to the case of v OritentaNhsurunc^^Cbmpany Lfei, Vs. Rajmdevi (Supra), he] vide Paras 21 & 22 as foUows: ft21. In oiir considered opiaion, fhe ratio of the decision ia Oriental Insuraace Co, Ltd. Case is \-.. <> <:!-^%..;^<: "^ ^ ^ ^-f'/ -•\~- V. 22. clearly applicable to fhe facts of fhe present case.In fhe present case, the deceased was not fhe owner of fhe inotorbike ia question. He borrowed fhe said niotorbike froni its real owner, The deceased caiinot be held to be an eiaployee of fhe owner of ftie niotorbtke alfhough he was authonzed to drive fhe said vehicle by its owner and, fherefore, he would step iato tiie shoes of the owner of fhe motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereiabefore. A bare perusal of tihe said provision woiild make it expUcitiy clear fhat persons Hke the deceased ia the present case would step iato fhe shoes of fhe owner of the vehicle. In a case whereio. the victim died or where he was pennanently disabled due to an accident arisiag out of the aforesaid motor vehicle i& fhat event fhe UabiMty to inake payinent of fhe conipensation is on fhe iasitraace Coxnpany or fhe owner, as fhe case may be, as provided under section 163-A of fhe Act. But if it is proved that the dnver is the owner of the motor vehicle, ia fhat case fhe owner could not hiniself be a recipient of coinpensation as fhe Uability to pay fhe same is on him. Accordiagly, fhe legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped iato fhe shoes of fhe owner of fhe niotor vehicle could not have clahned coiiipensation under Section 163-A oftheMVA." 8. Admittedty, id fhe present case fhe deceased was driviag a motorcycle whi<ph was borrowed from its real owner namely Dhardram/Resppndent no.l aad inet wifh an accid^ent wifhout mvolviag 'any .ofher vehicle. Siace the deceased had stepped iato shoes ofowneroffhe vehicle, section 163-A of the Act caimot at>NV wherein owner of fhe vehicle is / i / j -°^^, ^y^3^ '%.. /&. -.^.... • ^ J tl^;'^ ^ v ^-f./ iavolved. Hence fhe legal representatives of the deceased could not have clamied coinpensation u/s 163-A. In view of fhe above discussion, we are not iaclmed to interfere wifh the ioipugned award dated 17.01.2007 passed by the Tnbunal. Rao 9. In the result, the appeal is disinissed, No oider as to cost Sd/- I.M[;Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge L. \ \ ^ ^