1. Whether the rider of a two wheeler, not being the owner, can claim compensation as "Third Party", for an accident where no other vehicle is involved?

2. This is the question that requires consideration in all these appeals. Since a common question in involved in all these appeals, the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Sri A.K. Bhat, learned counsel has led the arguments on behalf of claimants appellants and Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel has led the arguments on behalf of the Insurer/respondents. Sri S.V. Hegde Mulkand, learned Counsel has also submitted his arguments on behalf of the Insurer respondent No.2 in MFA No.5537/2011.

4. The undisputed facts in all these matters are that the two wheelers were ridden by persons who were not the registered owners and there were no other vehicles involved in the accidents and the claim petitions were filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short). The owners and Insurers of the vehicles were arrayed as respondents in each of the petitions. The insurance policies were valid as on the date of the accident and the respective riders were holding valid driving license. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has dismissed each of the claim petitions on the ground that the rider of the vehicle was not a “Third Party” and the policy does not cover the risk of a person who is neither a Third Party nor “owner-cum-driver”.

5. Sri A.K.Bhat, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act defines “owner”, but the statute does not define "Third Party". The learned counsel has further submitted that when a person hires a vehicle or goods, he is treated as owner so long as he/she is in possession of the vehicle or goods.

6. Attention of this Court was drawn to the definition of the term “Owner” as provided under Section 2(30) of M.V.Act to substantiate that under Hire purchase Agreement, the person is possession of the vehicle can also be the owner. It should, however, be noted that in none of these cases have the claimants stated that the vehicle in question was “hired”. It was contended that the rider may also fall under the category of “borrower” or “employee”, depending on the facts and situation of each case. The learned counsel submitted that when a person other than the owner is the driver, he need not always be classified as "borrower". Calling the attention of this Court to the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha and Others, AIR 2012 SC 797 it was submitted that the onus is on the insurer to prove that the person had borrowed the vehicle. It was submitted that the insurer was also required to plead and prove that the vehicle was borrowed, since the insurer is defending the case of the "insured".

7. The learned counsel Sri A.K.Bhat has strenuously contended that the driver need not be the tort feasor always. It was submitted that the owner of the vehicle could be the tort feasor, if it could be proved that the vehicle was not maintained in good condition or that it was defective and the accident was caused due to the defect in the vehicle.

8. The learned counsel has further submitted that Section 163A starts with a non-obstante clause and therefore all other provisions in M.V. Act which are inconsistent with Section 163A of the M.V. Act will have no application. It was submitted that Section 163A was inserted in the Act with a laudable objective of providing succor and speedy justice to the victims of road accident, without having to prove "negligence" on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel laid emphasis on the non-obstante clause and submitted that the restriction of payment of compensation to "Third Party" in Chapter XI, is therefore not applicable to a claim petition made under Section 163A of M.V. Act.

9. The learned counsel has also taken this Court through the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the MV Act. It was p