IMPORTANT POINT
A borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner, disqualifying their legal heirs from claiming compensation against the insurance company.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for appellant and Sri B. Siva Kesava Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/claimants who appeared through Video Conference.

2. This appeal is directed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company against the award dated 23.08.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 84/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The application was filed under U/s. 163-A and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of Maddineni Venkata Rangaiah (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.04.2008 near Pathakothacheruvu village.

5. The case of the claimants is that the 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd claimant is the father, claimants No. 3 and 4 are minor children of the deceased; on 28.04.2008 the 1st claimant as pillion rider, and the deceased as driver were travelling on motor cycle bearing No. AP 02 YY TR 1487 belonging to the 1st respondent, to go to Vaduguru village; they reached the place of accident at about 09.30 a.m.; the deceased, could not control the speed and dashed a big boulder; as a result, the deceased sustained head injury and died at the spot; the 1st claimant sustained injuries; the deceased aged about 42 years and working as Driver in military; also doing agricultural work, earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum; the claimants are deprived of livelihood; hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed counter, contending that the accident was occurred due to negligence of deceased, and that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent; the insurance policy was in force; and therefore, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent.

7. The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. Insurance Company filed counter, contending that it is not liable to pay compensation as accident was occurred due to the self-negligence of the deceased and risk was not covered as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy; there is no contractual liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants.

8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of deceased M. Venkata Rangaiah had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle of the respondent No. 1 bearing No. AP 02 YY TR 1487?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief the petitioners are entitled?

9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, one witness was examined as PW-1 and three documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-3 respectively. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, its official was examined as RW-1 and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. No evidence was placed on behalf of the 1st respondent.

10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence, on issue No. 1, held that the deceased died due to accident, and that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The learned Tribunal on issue No. 2 held that as per section 147(b) of Motor Vehicles Act “the insurance of person or class of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) entitled for compensation, but when a third party insurance is there, definitely the deceased though was driving the vehicle is a third party being not registered owner of it, and that the petitioners are entitled for compensation, even though the deceased was not a registered owner of the vehicle.”

11. The learned Tribunal, assessed the loss of dependency, basing on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transp