IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAIURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Division Bamh MA. No. 91X /2005 APPELLANTS CLAIMANT g/ Mogara‘Bai, aged 32 years Wdl/o. Rajendr’a Prasad @ Chakku, Minor Kamalesh, aged 16 years Minor Ramesh, aged 14 years Minor Mukesh, aged 1O years No.2 to 4 S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Sahu @ Chakku, Through Natural Guardiah Mother Mongara Bai. AII R/o Bilaigarh, P.SA and Tahl BHéigarh, District Raipur (0G) VERSUS _R_E$0NDENTS 17 sanjay Sharma, aged 35 years S/o. S‘N. Sharma R/o. Bilaigarh, P.S. and Tah. Bilaigarh Dist. Raipur(C.Gr) The Oriential Insurance Co‘Ltd. Divisional Office~2, Second—Floor, Chawala Complex Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Marg, Raipur, District Raipur .(C.G.) Leeiavati Sahu, aged 6O years Wd/o. Accheram Sahu R/o. P.S‘ & Tahsil Biiaigarh District Raipur (C.G.) :1 HI§H COURT QF GHHATTI$GARH B!LA$PUR C$RAM Hen’bln 5hr! HVE QudduSI J & Han’bie $hri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J MA. Mo. 925, Gf 2005 APPELLANT$ Megara Bai and atherS. Versus RESPGNpENTS Sanjay $harma and others. Appearance: Shri Avinash Chandra Sahu chun3el for the appeliams. Shri Virendra Sharma counse! for respondent No 1 Shn A K Atha!ey, counaei for the re5pondent NO 2 QRAL QRDER { 07ioame11) passeci by FeHowing ara£ arder of the Court waS I. M. Quézmsi J ’ This appeal has been med by the ciaimants against the award dated 07f05/2005 paseed by‘il Additionai District Judge, Baioda Bazar (CE) in Claim Caee No. 91/2003 dismissing the claim petiiien of the appeiiants/ciaimante. (2) Brief feeie af the caee‘ a3 per the version of the claimants, are that the appellants are widow and three miner eons of the deceaeed Rejendra Praead, {3n 26I11/2002 deceased Rajendra Kemer $ahu @ Chakku aieng with Babuiai Sharma were cemihg from Bargarh to Biiaigarh through Seraipaii in motorcyoie Hero Honda bearing registration Ne. CG, 04-3279, Metercyeie was ofriven by Rajendra’Kumar ane Babuiei 3harma was sitting in the backside. When they reached near the turning of Ghateshwari temple, their motorcycle clashed with a cwle and lost its control as a result of which Raiendra Kumar received grievous injuries ane on the way to Hospitai he died. Deceased was working as Driver and used to earn Rs. 7.5OOI- per month. .v‘ W r‘z/ (3) The ciaimants being legal representative3 of the deceased med an agspiiaation befare ihe Tfibuna§ under $ecticn 163A uf the Motor Vehides Ast, cfaiming campengatian to the tune of R5. 9,2500% for the death of deceased in the said accident. (4) The alaims Tribunal after considering the material 0n record and tho arguments advanced by leamed coun$el for the respective parties: dismissed the claim petition. (5) The deceased berrowed the motorcyele from the owner with his censent and stepped inte the shees of the owner. (6) Hen‘ble the Supreme Court in the case of Qriental Insurance :l Company Ltd. Vs. Rajnidevi: reported in (2M8; 5 $66 735 has held that section 163-A of the Meter Vehicle Act 1988 eahnot be eaid to have any apialication in regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himeetf is involved. it wee further held that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is only on the owner of the vehicte since a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a ciaim in terms of $ection 163—A of the Act. {7) Further in the caee of Ningamma & another Vs. United‘lndia Insurance Company Limited reported in (ZQQQ) 13 SCG 710 the Supreme Court white referring to the caee of Oriental insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rainidevi (supra), held videparas 21~and 22 as follows;- “21. in our considered opinion. the ratio of the decision in Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd. case is clearly applicable tg the facts of the present case. ln the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He bOl'fGwed the said mOIOl'blKe ffom HS feat OWI’ieF. The deceased cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the . said vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he. would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinioefore. A bare . e?” perusa! af the saici provision wauid make it exp!icit!y dear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 22. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanentiy disabled due to an accident arising eut cf the aforesaid motot vehicle in that event the liability to make payment Of the COI'fmei’lSatlOl'l 15 On the ln$u¥ance Gampany Or the owner, as the ease may be as provicled under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner cf the meter vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of eompensation as the liability to pey the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a readtng of Section 163—A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehioie could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA." (8) “Admittedly, in the present case the deceased was driving a- motorcycie which was borrowe from its real owner namely d Saniay Sharmairespondent No.1 and met with an accident with cycle. Since the deceased had stepped into shoes of owner of the vehicle. Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein owner of the vehicle is involved. Hence the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed comoensation under Section 163-A. ln Vi of the above discussion, we are not inclined to ew interfere with the impugned award dated O7!05/2005 passed by the Tribunal. (9) in the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7£? i s / Sdl- l.M.Quddusi Sd/-‘ Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge