BBniBiBUB BS8M8^^ffiKMMgKiiiEIBiliisilEKil |j||gj|ajjj||^gg|s|BBBii8lBRBBiBBSlliiU IRIKU!!IB8111KBIEIffyii81iIBISISIIIiS |||ggft|!|gJ|B||SB|g^xg{gM|^g||'gjctB|g|;||l|g|®||pg[;(^^ IBJSiSffliBKiBBSSBBiSKSIifiiifiKfi^ |J|||g||J|8|g||%Bi||Eg^|g|g||ig||ffi|bS|^|g|pBH^gBt|i||[^ 18lSiK8S:ilBBSIBI§K18UiilMiSSWSS:Bffii^ ^ |||jj||gB|||]g||||||g|[|sig|||||||||Ujg|®s^j^;|||^^ ||a|||||l|tg|^^^||||||^^ia|j^|E|||i|%|||^|^i^ SiJISiffiBBBSBUN@Sii BaB8iJtNSSffSIW%^S@ IjjgjjjljjgJjgjJ^^IS^^Jgjlg^^^jjjljlljjjj^ -saa^nal -;''^^.^^f^^M^^S::^^^^^^;^i*'K^;:^;^^kft^ 1=K!-;K3l!G!M^ N;it:illJf^NI'IJIllfi^llJi^ll^iilSSIiJttfeMfli^^^%il^^^^^^^^^^BB^^Ii^:^ ®IWKSiBSBWffl@BiBBK89SliMBB888SSilSi8MjKli!' ?!MSISIWIUgSE M^IBlSsiE1SslMIBI |:i;<|^T^|;g:J1;i(|Bi^||ilMSSB|i@|;;^^[2 |^ ^;|JB||i|S^§!gg|g^g|t3;iiapis^yg®2B^^')^^ :;g^.Sgja!tJ3KB|B|^ ||^|3ggg^|El|§|||i^|;:l^||^O^t^i||BECE'iaS|)gBigi[| y^fisygWUSSSSUKiUWiMSWK j|;«|^tj||||t|j|j|gj|@||gji|t;.^w^g|ES^^|^? i||^|||B||@^^,|i|||re^^|^g||gg||||gj|]^ ''rs-;..;.;'"..:Ki^:E;^.^"\::! •'y, ^|iKi|B|^]8i3^|||B|^i k»^:w'l^itt^ j^g|J|g|gg^jg||^|g||g||||g||gggg^|j^ ®^K811ilS88MSiB@IISJIWtSliB®S Btl^Pt'Ki S &lS.^S$iSiiiUSss''^SSS;x^^ : <sWiSwSK!SUKSil!iiSiS^ ^S^WS SS ^BBfflSBlNJB^HIBJiiMBSBUBMIBBBBiSBffB m^^>. ®^K -1.^-' NlL ;lll: :;':^^ V^^^^^^^^SSIHSiSiiSiiiSiliSViSKSISiSIHsSSSSS^^ BSIISlSIH8BSSNi9i IS8BNB81!KJ!B8fi^:ti®;:^ilN^ 118jll8BiSB8iUlilBlliSBiBfilllSB81ff;tKj|^ MKKSB8fi»88lBKIBBS^^HNiffMSB18U8NIIBRSil^ i^B8KIBBSS8SMB81iK®®t?;181Q||iBB^BS^^ :^i^u:^^^§ •^ i.1.- fe !!Ri|iiBi iITOQH^COWialBSBi t.sBiHLaa»Bni^ .BBS' : •'-jjBGMiMl^lll^^ ' ! HOH'BI^ PRASHMrTKCTBfftMaSHRlL, AI, M. AKa.aiO.^tOCW 31006 vs. iU8C.AynB^XI/8l73<ffi^^^^I&MOTC WBHIGI.B8A€gP.l.^Mi APPBARAMCBs Mr. .Mal^- Kuatar Bl^lnaa<i0uasiel<fiM"&eiSq^»eB,tete.' ' Ate;®asIiratfeQupta,ct>uasel^iiespoBdentni».2. wassstmstiaA (Oa.oa.sKMia,) Per 1.1. QUDIWMEH. J. 3. This appeal has been fited by tte clainwnte a^inst award dated 28.Q2.XM®passeA toy TWh Mc»tor AcoiiieDt Claims Tribunal, Effla^na- ^©.G)ia CtoairGase N®.142^%OS cUamtesing tbe claim ofappellante. Bricffeets of fhe case as per ttie verMtm offfie claimaats are ttiat on 10.04.2005 atdbout 11.00 a.m,,dfieea3edSaii;toste Nagdaune ,was drivte^; thc tuotorcycle beafB^; Rega, No.C.Cr.tO-E /0963 bdonged tanOH-E^pMcaaf ao.1. Whate passing fhrcmgh the jDnaln isiad ia fi'QB.t (rf^Naamrfi B^ar, at TeUpara, Bflaspiu-te applied the-biakBsJOieiaferefteevehicfe became iincQntiplted aad dashed the road sid& clectric pote, as a result Qfwhlch, he sustained head iajury aad died. TUe elaimants being lcgal reprGsea.tatayes offtte deeeased flleft an appUGation bcfore the TribuDal ii/s 163-A of the MoitBr ^: •APSBUAHT .'- •,;"; Sx|teIWrga.Oe^l'lagaalm^ai^ottt^ i fSBSVWtDWTB ^jMhamaoIiait^Nagdamie'amljaaoffi , -^i:':~'-"' '"^ ^ "^ Vetdcles Act, clauuing conipensatton to the tune of Rs.6,90,000/- on various heads. 3. The Claims Tribunal has held fhat the Motorcycle has met with an accident iu which the deceased died aiid the owaer of fhe vehicle has not violated condittons of the iasucaace policy. However the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground fhat the deceascd biinself was negligent wtule driving the motorcycle and the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act vrill not be applicable in this casc. 4. We have heard leacaed couasel for the parttes quite at length aad have also gone through flic records ofthe Tribtuial. 5. AppeUant no. 1 Srat Durga Devi has examined hcrseM" as A.W.l. SIie has stated on oath tfaat her husbaad that is deceased was running a hotel at Magaxpara. (Bflaspur) and on the fateful day, he bas borrowed the Hexo Honda Motorcycle bearing Rega.No.C.G. 10-E/0963 fi?om lus bn»ther for bringmg goods for lus own hotel. He was golng to Sanichari Bazar and on the way at Telipara fhe accldeat tocric place, as a result ofwhich he sustaiaed injuries aad djed. 6. In view of the above, it appears that though fhe deceased borrowed fhe niotor cycle with^the coasent of fhe owner/respondent no.l, wlio is Iiis real biother, but be Iiad not ass^ned any work to tbe deceased. However, siace the deceased was authorized to drive the said vehicle aad he met with accident by dasbxag against aa electric pole situated on the road side without involving any other vehiclc, we are of. 1 •.iw.^1^'' A ^:"^ "'""":; ^s- the opinion tliat the dece^aed has steppcd iato shoes ofthe owner. 7. Hon'bte fhe Suprenie Court ia case of Ortenfad JiBsunauw Compemy Ltd., Vs. R»fwUte»l{reported 1n (aOOSf S SfX: 736 bas held fhat section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 cannot be said to havc any appUcation ia regard to aa accident whereia the owner of the niotor vefaicle himself is iavolved. 8. Furfher in case of JVtafl«u»unu<(nd aMi^er Ys, ViiiteS Jndte Jinsurance Conipuna IfimUed ?epo»*sd<n 20W (13i SCC 710 thc Supreme Court while referrmg to fhe case of Oriental Insurance Company LtS., Vs. Rajmdem (Siyira), held vide Paras 21& 22 as foUows; "21. In ozu- considered opinion, the ratio of the decMion ia Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Case is clearly appUcable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceascd was not the owner of the inotorbike in questioa. He borrowed the said inotorbUEe fiwm its real owner. The dcceased cannot be held to be an einployee of the owuer of the motorbilte although he was authorized to drive the said vehfcle by its owiier aad, therefore,' he would step iato the shoes of thc owner of fhe luotorbike. We bave already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it expUcitly clear that persons like flie deceased ia fhe preseat caae would step iato the shoes of the owner of fhe vehiclc. 22. In a case whereia the victim died or wliere he was pcnnanently disabled due to aa accideat e/ arising out of the aforesaid inotor vehtele in that event fhe UabilUy to mafce paymeat of fhe coxnpensation is on the insurance Coiupany or the owner, as fhe case may be, as provided uader section 163-A of the Acfc But if it is proved that fhe driver is the owner of thc inotor vehicle, in fhat case the owner coiild not ttunself be a recipient of conipensation as fhe liabflity to pay the sainc is on him. Accordingty, the legal representatwes of fhe dcceased who have stepped iato fhc shoes ofthe owner ofthe inotor veliicle could not have elaimed compensation under Section 163-A ofthe MVA." 9. When we apply the above priuciples to the present case, we are of fhe view that fhe claimaats are not eatitled to cdaiin coinpensation u/s 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act and to fhat extent the Tribunal was r^ht in holdtog tfaat the ssad provisions are not appUcabIe to the facts and cucunastances offhe present case. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are not iaclined to interiere with the impugned award dated 12.01.2006 passed by fhe TribunaL The appeal is dteinissed. No order as to cost(s). I.M.Q«ddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao