fcC^*3. fi ."...-.. ^ .. ....- ... ^. v) ^ t1 ^::' .•'••"n -"^ r^~ ^.^ •f\"? ^^tS Uiy^j^^ §y"e^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.(C)No.- JZg^/c^<§ ^ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION NO.-l, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., JAIL ROAD RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR C.G. Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ^..••<<^'^-\^ ^^"sf€-y ^ {- :->. SANTOSHI CHANDRAKAR AGE 34 YRS., WIDOW OF PRAHLAD CHANDRAKAR 2. KU. HIMANSHI CHANDRAKAR AGE 09 YRS., D/0 PRAHLAD CHANDRAKAR 3. SIDDHARTH CHANDRAKAR S/0 PRAHLAD CHANDRAKAR, AGE 04 YRS., FOR MINOR RESPONDENTS N0.- 2 & 3, THROUGH MOTHER SANTOSHI CHANDRAKAR AS GUARDIAN PRESENT ADDREES - ASHOK VERMA, HANDIPARA, RAIPUR, DISTRICT- RAIPUR C.G. RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- ^ RAMESFIWAR CHANDRAKAR, THROUGH S CHANDRAKAR TRADERS, RESIDENT OF TITURDIH, TAHSIL & DISTRICT- DURG C.G. ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ii&Ek,.:-1 9 'W^M. HIOH COURT OP €aiHATraBGU H.BKLABWIIt DB: HOWBI-E I.N. QUIMDU8I & H(MI»BI^O. MHIHAJUDDIN, JJ MI8C. APPBAL (Ct Mo.287 OF 2008 v^. RBSPOIIIMB1VT Sacitosli CIiiand.ralcar and ottiers MI8CBLLAJIB<W»APPBALV/81<730PTHBMOT®R1j®HI<SLBS ACT. 1994 JU»PBARAIICB: Mr. Sudhir ^rawal, counsel forthe appellant. Mr, A, L. SingFaiil,eoiuiselforrespOBdrartsil to3. i%:i .1.; Per LM. OUDDUSI. J QWBKRiQStAU (1S.06A011) 1. This appeal has been filed by iaie Iiisiiraace Comjpaay ag^inst tfae iaitpiigcied award dated05< 12.2007 passed toy tlie XAddl. MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal(F.T.C), Raipur(C.G) fastening tfae Mability to pay compaisation on fhe appeUant 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of claimant are fhat on 01.11.2004 deceased Prahlad CliaiidrsdEar aloagwith Ns family members was goiag on Motorcycle bearfcag Regn.No.C.G.07-A/0659. On fhe way near a turnang p<ant of Sfaivnath river, fiiont tire of the said motoroycle was burst aad it became uncontrofled, as a resutt of whfa^hy tfae niotorqycle struck agaiast a tree on the road side and diie to fhe said accident, fhe deceased sustamed ©rievousmijuries and died. At fhe time of accident, the deceased was aged about 36 years. He was workmg as Computer Operator aa.d APPBLLANT The Orieate! InsuraBce Co. Lstd. r was earaing Rs,40,000/- per anniiiii. The ^^rimj»fits bemg dependents/legal represeiitatives have filed t3be cteim petltion u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehictes Act for the award @f compensation to fbg tuiie ofRs.5,80,000/- <m varioiis Iieads* The leanied Claiixis Tnbimal has a^^id^d a total compejaisation of Rs,4,01,000/- which fhe claimants are entitied to rcceive fpom the appeUaat 3. We faave heard learoied coimsel for the ^rtiea aod liave also penised ffae impugaed awapd as well as fhe fficoida of fhe Claims Tribunal, 4. It is an admitted fact t3iat the motorcycle did aiot belong to fhe deceased, He boxiiowed ^bie same feom its real owner ie. rcspondeiit No.4 heapem and as meiitioaed ixt fhe ctettm petition, the acckleiit took place due to burst oftte fexat tiire wlule he was ddviaigtiie said vefaicle. Howeverixipaxal^of the impugaed awaidy the Tribiinal has tield fhat tfae accidcmt took place when the motorcyele stnyk aq^icist the tree aad not due to burst offhe tirc. S. In fhe matter of Ortentafl Iiwuraace <©omyaayUd. Vs. Rajnt Devi reported in (SS008) 8 8GC 73®Hon^le tfee Supreme Court has Iield Ifaat Sectioaa 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act^ 1988 caiinotbe said to haw; any appaicatioxi ia rcgard to aa accidesat whereia fhe owner of fhe motor vehicle himsdf is mmdved. It was further hdd tibat fhe liability under Sectibn 163-A ofthe Act is onfy on l3ie owxier oftiie vehicle siace a person caanot be botb^ a claamant as also a recipient, the heira of the deceased could xiot have maintained a daim in terms of Secttem 163*A offhe Aefc 6. Further in fbe matter ^ inngnmnMi &.an»tiMar 'V». Ifetted tttdla InsiiMmee OQIIIIWU^T tAmlted rcported ia (S^)9) 13 8CC 710 Hon'ble the Suprcme Court m paras 21 & 22 has held fhus :- a21< In oiir considered opiaiioii, tfaeratio offhed€disfe>2i^^^ Orienhit Insurccncs CQ. Ltd. case KS cteariy appMcabte to the facts of fhe preseat case, Ixi tike preseiit e&se, fh.e deceased was not 13ie owaer of ffa^ laatorbilEe te question. He borrowed fhe said motorlHke fi^)m its rcal owner, TIw deceased caxuiot tw held to be an employee of fhedwiier of ttie motoafcil^ altho^ghJae was aufhorized to drive the said vehiate by ite owaer and, fherefore, he would step mto the stioes of tlie owner of fhe motoite&e* We faave alreaxiy extractel Section 163-A of fhe MYA tiex^embefore. A bsBff'e perusal of fhe said piKwisicMi w<mM mate it expla^^ dear tfaat persons lilffi fhe deceased m l^ pa^eex^ case woiild step iaito ^^ shoes of the <3iwi^ vehicle. 22. In a case wfaereia fhe victfeia died o^ li^ii^re te i?<^ pennanenfty disabted due to an accidexat arisiag cmt of the afoxesaid motor vehicte in fhat event tihie Kabitily to make payment of the compeaaatfoB is oa fhe iasiirance compaxiy or tte owner, as the case may be as provided under Sectioa l63w-A< But if it is proved tiiat the driver is fhe owiier of tihe motor vehicle, in that case the owner eoiaki aot Nm^^Ifbe a i^ecipient of ccHEtpeD.sation as tiie liabilily to pay fhe same is on tum. This proposition te absolutety ctear on a rcadmg of Sectkm 163-A of th^ MVA. Accordmgly, fhe legal reprcseatatiyes oftiie deceased who liave stepped ixito tiie slaoes of 1^ <mmer <rf fhe motor vehicle couM not have claimed wixixpeaBatiea under Section 163-A ofthe MVA." Admittedty fhe deceased was drwiag ttoe motoTCyek wldch was borrowed fix>m its rcal owner laamefy Raaeshwar Chaadrakar^ rcspoiadeait 110.4 faercin, aiul met with aa accideiit without icwolvmg aay ofber vehiGde. Siiaee fhfi deceased had stepped iobto llie shoes of tfae Gwaer of fh.e vehicle, piovisions of section 163-A of the Aet are not appMcable in the instaat case aaad as sucii the daim petition was not mairitabaable^ Tfaex^fore, ia viCTr cxf tihe settled position of law, we are af the opiiaicm fhat ttoje ^^-^^ i:.^F.^^ .^^ 3 •&5s-^rr^^. '^ I 1 ^ r' claimaats, who arc legal representafives of fbe deceased, could not have claimed compensation under Section 163- AoffheAct 8. In the rcsult, fbs appeal succeeds axid tfae impu@ied awa^d dated 05.12.2007 passed by fhe Claims Tribuaal ia Claau Case No. 123/2006 is set aside. No oider as to costs. 9. The amount which is ia deposit sMan be aBowed to be witfadrawn. If the same has alrcady becn disbursed to the clamiante, it will be open for fhe Insurance Coaipaay to recover fix>m the owner or fhe claimante, as fhe case may be, Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao