p ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'bte Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. M.A. (C) No.1433/2009 Neelavati and another Vs. Banshlal and another ORDER For consideratioi'L Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA IN^ 3 <^r£r£n Sd/- Chief Justice P<^t for Order :/^/04/2010 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha judge ^.,.'% i^'..., 4 '•^y A.F.R HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Guota. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Suiiit Kumar Sinlia. J. ^ APPELLANTS Claimants MA. (C) No.1433/2009 1 Neelavati aged about 25 years, W/o Motilal by Caste Kawar, 2 Ku. Pooja, D/o Late Motilal, aged about 6 years, being minor througtT^potKel Neelavati aged about 25 years, VWo Motilal by Caste Kawar, Both R/o Village Turrlpara, Bachra, Thana Khadgawa, * Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Korea RESPONDENTS Owner Insurer Versus Banshlal ag^d about 51 ^esa^ S/o Village Domanhitt Colliery, Nehru Colony, Thana Chirmiri, Distt. ^orea Branch Manager, United Indfa Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch lOffice, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja. APPEAlAINDER^ECTIQNJTlOFJMg^ VEHICLES ACT "s^ Appearance: Mr. Punft Ruparei, Counsei forthe appellants. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Counsel for respondent N6.1 .l Mrs Chitra Shrivastava, Counsel for re8pondentN<».2. .-.QRDgR-,---.1.,' -..^ „ i:: (^04.2010) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Slnha. J. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ » (1) Being aggrieved with the award dated 20.08.20©9,passed in ClaSm Gase No.28/2007 by the Additlonal Motor Accident Claims M.A. (Ct No.1433/2009 ^ Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea, the appellants/clatmants have filed this appeal. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Deceased" Motilal died in a motor accident on 2.41.2006. The appellants are the wife and minor daughter of the deceasedi They filed a claim petition under Section 168-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act daiming compensation of Rs.30,58,000/- for the death of deceased - Motilal In the motor accldent. The appellants pleaded that the deceased himself was driving the Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing registratton hto.CG-16" 0194 at the time of the accident, which was owned by respondent No.1; According to the appellants, the deeeased was aged about 31 years. Respondent No.1 admitted the ownership of the motorcycle . He pleadedthat the deceasedtook his motorcyde without Informing him, for whteh, a report was lodged by him in the concerned Pollce Chowki. His motorcycle was insured with respondent No.2. Theaccident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself, therefore. the appetlants were not entitled to receive compensation. However, if any amount of compensatlon is determined in favour of the appellants, that may be realized from the Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 also denied the cqnterrts^f the claim petition and it further denied its liabillty to pay compensatipn. The iearned Claims Tribunal held that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident whteh took place on 2.11.2006, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to receive compensation from the responctents. (3) Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in law in ho(GUn| that |n the facts and circumstances of the case, parttcul^rty In Hght of the provlsions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehides Act, the appeUants '^ t ^. 3 JVI.A. (Ct No.1433/2009 'w were not entitled to receive compensation on account of death of the deceased, even if he himself was negligent. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay A^irwal and Mrs. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel appeartng.on behalf of the respondents opposed these arguments. Mrs. Shrivastava argued that sincethe borrower of the Motor Cycte stepped into the shoes of ttie owner and the owner cannot himself be a recipient of compensatlon as the liability to pay the same is on hlm, the appellants/claimants were not entitled to receive any amount of compensation from the respondents and the clalm was rightly dismissed bythe Tribunal. She relied on the judgment ot the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Ninaamma wid another vs. Unlted India Insurance Co. Ltd.. 2009 ACJ 2020. (S) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) In Ninaamma (supraL after examining the scheme of 1 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court held vide para 19 as under: "19. We have already extracted section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provSston would make it explicitly ctear that persons iike the decegsed in the present case would step Into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicte in that event the tiabiltty to make payment of compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provlded under Sectjon 163-A. But If it is proved that driver is the owner of the motor vehicie, in that case the owner coutd not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely ctear on a reading of ^' f'. ^-^. ^ \ ^- • "^ MA. (Cl No.1433/2009 ^^ ^ section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, e legal ; representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under section 163-A ofthe MVA." (7) In the present case, admittedly, the deceased wasthe borrower of the motorcycie and he had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. Therefore, on the principles laid down (n Ninaamma (Suprat. the deceased being a borrower of the motor cycle and tlwre being no involvement ofany other vehicle, the legal repr^entatives of the deceased would not be entitled to clalm compensation imder Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehlcles Act. (8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not flnd any sitostance in the appeal .The appeal is liable to be djsmissed and is hereby dismissecf. (9) There shail be no order asto cost(s). __ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna