Point of Law: dependents of the deceased could not have legitimately maintained an application for compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

1. Are the dependents of a person, who borrows the motor cycle from its owner and dies in an accident while riding the said motor cycle, there being no involvement of any other vehicle, entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act, 1988”), is the question which wrenches to the fore in this appeal.

2. The aforesaid question arises in the backdrop of the following facts :

a) Rajendra Prasad (hereinafter refereed to as “the deceased”), was the son of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and brother of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (original applicants). He was employed as inspector (Sampling) with a company, namely, Quality Services and Solutions, Goa. On 30th June, 2007 at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing No. GA-6-B-6667 owned by the respondent No.2-original opponent No.1 and insured with appellant/insurer/original opponent No.2, on his way to Vasco. When the deceased came near Martin Bar Sada, within the limits of Marmgao, he lost control over the motor cycle and fell down. Eventually the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The applicants preferred a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988.

b) The opponent No.1-owner did not resist the claim.

c) The opponent No.2-insurer resisted the claim by raising multiple grounds including a contention that the claim was not maintainable against the respondent No.2 as it was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988 for the death of the deceased on account of his own rash and negligent act. The person responsible for the accident is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988. It was contended that Section 163-A does not alter the legal basis on which the liability arises under Section 147 of the MV Act, 1988.

d) The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sindhudurg, (“the Tribunal”) recorded the evidence of applicant No.1 - Rama. After appraisal of the oral evidence and the documents tendered for his perusal, the learned Member was persuaded to allow the application holding, inter alia, that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident while he was riding the motor cycle bearing No. GA-6-B-6667, there was no breach of the conditions of contract of insurance, and, thus, the applicants were entitled to compensation. Arriving at a multiplicand of Rs.24,000/-and applying the multiplier of 16 and adding thereto the compensation under conventional heads, the Tribunal directed the opponent Nos.1 & 2 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.3,86,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition, to the applicants.

e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award, the opponent No.2/insurer is in appeal.

3. The principal ground of challenge in appeal is whether a person who had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and suffered death in an accident on account of his own negligence can be said to be a third party within the meaning of Section 147 and a victim under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988.

4. I have heard Mr. Mahadik, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anand Patil, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 - original applicants at length. With the assistance of the counsels for the parties, I have perused the material on record including the pleadings, deposition of witness Rama (PW-1) and the documents tendered before the Tribunal.

5. Before adverting to consider the submissions canvased across the bar it may be apposite to note uncontroverted facts. First and foremost, it is the case of the applicants that the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing No. GA-6-B-6667 and met with an accident as he lost control over the said motor cycle. No other vehicle was even remotely involved. Secondly, there is not much controversy over the fact that the said motor cycle was owned by opponent No.1 and insured with opponent No.2 - appellant. Thirdly, nor there is much dispute over the fact that t