Case: RAMKHILADI Vs. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle. 5.7 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon by the learned Advocate for the claimants on the decision of this Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (supra), on considering the issue involved in that decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the claimants. In that case, the issue was as to who could be said to be the registered owner of the vehicle and the liability of the owner who sold the vehicle, but his name continued to be as the owner with the registering authority. To that, it was held that the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of the Act. 5.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner¬driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2 nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the Judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and Order has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018, i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2 nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2 nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 5.9 Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the claimants that in a claim under Section 163A of the Act mere use of the vehicle is enough and despite the compensation claimed by the heirs of the owner of the motorcycle which was involved in the accident resulting in his death, the claim under Section 163A of the Act would be maintainable is concerned, in view of the decision of this Court in Rajni Devi (supra), the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In Rajni Devi (supra), it has been specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. After considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263 ; Dhanraj (supra); National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700 and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193 , it is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. It is further observed that, for the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), it is specifically held by this Court that the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore, as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh as observed hereinabove.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5.3 While answering the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 2, it appears that, as such, the learned Tribunal has not at all answered the aforesaid issue. While answering Issue No. 2, there is no specific finding whether the deceased¬driver was in employment of the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay or not. Even otherwise, no evidence is led by the claimants to prove that the deceased¬driver was in employment of the opponent¬owner Bhagwan Sahay. Despite the above, while answering Issue No. 4 there is some observation made by the learned Tribunal that the deceased-driver was in employment of the opponent¬owner Bhagwan Sahay, which is not supported by any evidence on record. Under the circumstances, the deceased¬driver cannot be said to be in employment of the opponent¬owner Bhagwan Sahay and, therefore, he can be said to be permissible user and/or borrower of motor vehicle owned by the opponent¬owner Bhagwan Sahay. With these findings, the main question posed for consideration of this Court referred to hereinabove is required to be considered5.4 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra). In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Therefore, as such, in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra), and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable. 5.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle5.7 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon by the learned Advocate for the claimants on the decision of this Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (supra), on considering the issue involved in that decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the claimants. In that case, the issue was as to who could be said to be the registered owner of the vehicle and the liability of the owner who sold the vehicle, but his name continued to be as the owner with the registering authority. To that, it was held that the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of the Act5.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner¬driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2 nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the Judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and Order has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018, i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2 nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2 nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle5.9 Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the claimants that in a claim under Section 163A of the Act mere use of the vehicle is enough and despite the compensation claimed by the heirs of the owner of the motorcycle which was involved in the accident resulting in his death, the claim under Section 163A of the Act would be maintainable is concerned, in view of the decision of this Court in Rajni Devi (supra), the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In Rajni Devi (supra), it has been specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. After considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263  ; Dhanraj (supra); National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700    and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193 ,  it is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. It is further observed that, for the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), it is specifically held by this Court that the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore, as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh as observed hereinabove.