IMPORTANT POINT
A borrower of a vehicle is entitled to personal accident coverage under the insurance policy, despite not being the owner.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. M.F.A. No. 7439 of 2015 is filed by the claimant for seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. M.F.A. No. 1347 of 2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award of granting compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants.

3. The deceased while driving Maruthi Car bearing registration No. KA-05-Z-9527 towards Bengaluru from Thirupathi on Chittoor-Bengaluru road at about 10.30 a.m., on 16.07.2011 died in an accident due to his own rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the claimant being the wife of the deceased has filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act). The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the M.V. Act.

4. Therefore, the claimant has preferred the above appeal for seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas, the Insurance Company has filed appeal by contending that under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, the owner alone is liable to compensate but not the Insurance Company. Hence, saddling burden on the Insurance Company to pay the above said compensation is not correct. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company prays to modify the liability by fixing liability on the owner of the vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that by going through the provisions under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, it indicates that it is the owner alone who has to pay the compensation but not the Insurance Company; by indemnifying the owner, whereas, the compensation is awarded under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, under no fault. It is argued that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner as per Section 140 of the M.V. Act.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant that under the insurance policy, there is coverage of personal accident claim and as per this, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 Lakh. Admittedly, the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy and was in force as on the date and time of the accident and for personal accident coverage, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh and he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi Vs. The United Insurance Company, (2020) 6 SCC 550.

7. It is also another submission made by the counsel for the Insurance Company that under the personal accident coverage, only the owner cum driver, which means, while the owner driving the Car met with an accident alone is entitled for compensation under the personal accident coverage but not by any other person. Therefore, it is submitted that, in the case on hand, the deceased is not the owner of the Car but has borrowed the Car and met with an accident. Hence, on this ground also, he submitted that the claimant is not entitled for compensation under the personal accident coverage.

8. Admittedly, the insurance policy issued in the case is comprehensive policy and sum assured under the personal accident coverage is Rs.1 Lakh. The insurance policy was in existence as on the date of the accident. The deceased was not owner of the Car, but he has borrowed the Car from the owner. Then, the deceased being a borrower of the Car has stepped into the shoes of the owner. Therefore, the personal accident coverage is also applicable to the borrower of the vehicle. On this ground, I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (referred supra) wherein also under the similar set of facts and circumstances, it is held at Para No. 9.8, which reads as follows:

“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