IMPORTANT POINT
The claimant, stepping into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, does not fall under the category of a third party, rendering the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 not maintainable.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 30.10.2015 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short, 'the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.43/14, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the story is that on 12.09.2012, the appellant/claimant, who was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG- 12-AA-2292 (for short, the offending motorcycle), was coming from Jaijaipur to Paladi, met with a vehicular accident near Darrabhata main road, owing to which, he received injuries on his head, both hands, leg, ear and other parts of the body. Matter was reported to Baradwar Police Station. Thereafter, the injured/claimant was referred to Primary Health Center, Baradwar and then was treated at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and Narayana Hospital, Raipur. At the time of accident, respondent No.1, being wife of the claimant, was registered owner of the offending motorcycle whereas respondent No.2 was insurer of the offending motorcycle. On account of injuries sustained by him, he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50% and obtained medical certificate from the Medical Board.

3. Owing to injuries including permanent disability to the extent of 50% sustained by him in vehicular accident, he filed a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- on various heads. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal.

4. The respondent No.2/insurance company took a defence that the accident happened due to the negligence of the injured/claimant, for which, he himself was responsible. It was admitted by it that on the date of incident the offending motorcycle was insured but there was breach of policy conditions by respondent No.1 as respondent No.1 did not drive the offending motorcycle but had given the offending motorcycle to some other person to drive the same and thereby caused the accident, which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also pleaded by it on the date of accident, the appellant, who was not even a third party, was not possessing valid and effective driving licence, as such, no liability could be fastened upon it.

5. The Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 30.10.2015, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has held that the claimant has been able to prove the factum of accident that was caused on 12.09.2012 and sustained injuries, but dismissed the claim petition in toto on the ground that there was breach of policy conditions and since the appellant/claimant stepped into shoes of the owner of the motorcycle and thus does not come within the ambit of third party, therefore, the appellant/claimant has been unable to prove his case. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in holding respondent No.2/insurance company not liable for payment of compensation. While drawing attention of this Court to the insurance policy, filed by the insurer and is part of record of Claims Tribunal, it is vehemently submitted that additional premium of Rs.50/- was obtained by it for covering the risk of owner driver and liability of the insurance has been shown to be limited to Rs.1 lakh, therefore, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay that much compensation.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company, while supporting the order of dismissal, submits that the claim petition filed by the appellant is not tenable on the ground that respondent No.1 is the wife of the claimant as well as owner of the offending motorcycle and injured/claimant stepped into shoes of the owner of motorcycle and does not fall in the category of third party and that