‘V IN THEBQWBLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATHSGAIBH AT BWUR D sum Bench a $ a.. ‘ MMcmg .LLé... 0:: LOH PPEAL UNDER sECTmN 17 OF m Momx VEHICLES ACT 1988 (‘éPEEALVALUED AT Rs. g4 QM / ¥ z Unitsd India Insurance Company Lmuted through :ts Dmsmnal (Now Applicant Manager,D1v151onal 0f&cc l st Floor No‘VZ) Knshna Complex kutchery Chowk Raipur, Dism— Raipu; (CG) Versus Apgallam SmLSantoshi Bai W/O — Late Bharat Lal Nishad, aged 20 years. Occupation - House Wife. (Applicantmz) /2/ Léi Kn NisiiadQaggd Kevara Bax, D/O -1 idem. Laxe Bharat Minor thmugh Mother Santoshi Bai Respodndcm no. 1. (ApplicantN03) /§/ Sigh Kam‘a Bai, WIO—Rul) Lal N1sha¢ aged—46 years. Rup. Lal Nishad, SlOvLate Bhagoli Nishad, aged-50 years. All are R/O‘Sathiabada, Thakkatbapa, Waxd-Gudhiyaxi, RS. and PD.- Gxiéibiyaxi, Tah am! Dist-Mp“: (C.G.) Amij Kumax Agtawal /O — Shankar Lal Ji Agrawal, R/O—Vill-Choraha Navagaon, Tah.—Simga, DistL — Raipur (CG). RaEondents ,r (Applicant No 1) (Applicant No.4} (NON-Applmam , NQJ) k ( L 4 A S HQGH COURT QF CHHATTE§GARHI EILASPUR CQRAM: Han’hle Shri l.M.Quddusi,J.& m Hon’blgshri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. (w M Ix c ue £ n ‘ s MA. (C) LPR) N ,380?‘ of 2010 APPgLLANT United lndia Insurance Company Limitad. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Santashi aai and others. AEPEAL UNQER $ECTIGN 1?3 OF TgE MQTQR VEHIQLE ASL 1988 Appearance: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counse‘ f¢r the vappelmnt. Shri Arjun La! Singroui, counsel fairtesrpendent No.1. GRAL QRQER ( 13M! QM 1§ ma! urder of tha Court wa$ péssed by Fonawing it M: Quddusi‘ J. Th€3 appeal has been flied by tha Uniied India insurance Company Limitea‘ agaimt the impugned award dated 271%!2010 of tha H Additiana! Motor Apcident Claim$ Tribunal, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in C!aim Case N0. {39/2009 awarding R$.4.24,000i- jointly and severauy' against the appeiiant» inpurance Company and the owner of the~ motorcycie whish was being (iriven by the deceaeed. (2) The brief facts of the case are that on 11I12f2008 at aboui 6.30 ppm. in the evening deeeaeee/Bharat Lai Nishad was going to Khamariya frem Nawegaon on his motorcycie bearing regietraiion No. C,G.04 DCI5904. Qn the Way near viliege Mae the motorcycie became uncentroiie‘d and accident rook piece as e reeuit of which Bharat La! received grievous injuries: He was iaken to Nandghat Hespitai for treatment Where he died. Deeeased. wee aged abeut 23 years. He was working a3 Munehi and wee getting Re.3,€)00f- per month as saiary. The oiairnants have eiaimed eempensation of Rs.9,50,€)OOX-. :r’ KC) We have perused the impugned award and the cepy of the insurance peiicy produced by the learned ceuneei for the appeiiant though the piea was taken by the ciaimant that the deceased was the empioyee of the $ owner of me motorcycle but the same c0uld not be proved and was not accepted by the TribunaL There is no reason to disbelieve the finding. of the Tribunal in this regard. However, the ctaim was tiled under Section 1&3-A ef the Meter Vehiciee Act. The motercycte was borrcwed by the i ‘ deeeased from its owner and therefere it is weli settted that the deceased etepped into the shoes ot the owneri hence there was no question to oiaim the compensation from its owner as the owner cannot ciaim compensation ‘ from himself. (4) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ease of Qriental Insurance Company l' a Ltci. Vs. Rajnicievi; reported in (2008) 5 $CC 736 has held that section H L 1a3—A of the Motor Vehicle Aet 1988 cannot be said to have any application in regard to an accident wherein the oWner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. lt was further held that the liability under Section 163-A of the Act l is only on the owner of the vehicle since a person cannot be both, a ciaimant as also a recipient, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. (5) Further in case of Ningamma & another Vs. United lndia insurance Company Limited reported in (2M9) 13 SCG 719 the Supreme Court while referring to the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Rajnidevi (supra), held Vide paras 21 and 22 as foilows:;- i i “21. ln our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Oriental lnsuranoe Co. Ltd. case is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. ln the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner‘ 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 6: shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare that persons like the deceased in‘ the present case wouid step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear r. 22. ln a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself he a recipient ot compensation as the liability to pay the same is 6 ‘ ' on him. This propasition is absomteiy dear on a reading of Section 163—A of the MVA. Accordingly, the iegai representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the snoes of the owner of the motor vehicie could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA,” (6) However, according to the insurance poiicy the risk of the owner was oovered to the extent of R31 ,00.000!— and therefore the insurance Company is liabie to pay Rs.1 ,00.000/- only to the deceased who stepped into the shoesof the owner and therefore we allow this appeal and reduce the amount of compensation to the extent of the liability of the tnsuranoe Company i.e. Rs.1.00,000/~ aiong with a eimple interest of 5% per annum from the date of appltoation. (7) Therefore, the claimants should be entitled to get only Rsi £10,000!- antl 6% simpie interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil that payment is made. (8) (3opy of the insurance policy shall form part of the record of the appeal‘ (9) The appeal is allowed in part; Sdl- I.M.Quddusi Judge l“ -A '7 an