FAO No. 1862 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1862 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 9.4.2010 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......... Appellant Versus Kusum Rani & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the grant of compensation by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) under the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of death of Balbir Singh. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of death of Sh. Balbir Singh, who was driving the motor cycle by borrowing it from the owner. There is no dispute, that the accident occurred while the vehicle was in use, therefore, the case was covered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the borrower of the motor cycle stepped into the shoes of the owner, FAO No. 1862 of 2010 -2- therefore, the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation from the Insurance Company, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma & another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009(3) RCR 435. The learned Tribunal did accept this plea of the appellant, but held that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claim was covered under the Insurance policy. It was proved, that under the Insurance Policy a special premium covering the owner was paid, and the owner was, therefore, covered under the Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal held, that once the deceased was treated to be owner for the purposes of claim against the Insurance Company, he could avail the benefit of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only). The learned Tribunal only granted statutory amount Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) against the Insurance Company. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that once the borrower of vehicle had no contract with the Insurance Company, he could not be covered under the Insurance Policy. It was by way of interpretation of law, that deceased was treated to be owner, but he could not be a contracting party with the Insurance Company. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by this Court in FAO No. 1774 of 2010 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Versus Rakesh Kumar & Anr., decided on 6.4.2010. FAO No. 1862 of 2010 -3- Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 9.4.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE