JUDGMENT

S Hukato Swu, J. - Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal directed towards MACT Case No. 1220/2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati on 21.09.2010.

Brief facts of the case is that on 17.12.2006, Siraj Uddin was proceeding towards Kamrup by riding a motorbike bearing Registration No. AS01-Z-048 (Motorbike). While he was trying to give side to another vehicle, he met with an accident and was grievously injured. He succumbed to his injuries. The victim had borrowed the motorbike of Md. Nur Uddin, who was the registered owner which was covered under package policy with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The claimants filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) and the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition in favour of the claimant by awarding a sum of Rs. 2,49,000/- as compensation to be borne by the appellant. The learned Tribunal discussed the position of law as to who is the owner of the motor vehicle under the M.V. Act as provided in Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act and opined that a registered owner has a wide connotation. The vehicle can be in the possession and control of someone who is not the owner but he may be construed as an owner and liable. Thus, the ownership of the vehicle under the M.V. Act has a wider implication. Referring to the case of Ningamma & another vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, (2009) 13 SCC 710 where it has been ruled by the Division Bench that the borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and he would be liable for compensation to the 3rd party, however, he would not be covered as he steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle in an accident caused by himself. A person could not be both the claimant and the receiver. This ratio is passed on the principle that the person who borrowed the vehicle has total possession of the vehicle and also control of the vehicle in the accident. However, in the absence of these 2 (two) elements, he would not step into the shoes of the real owner. Learned Tribunal opined that in the instant case, there is a difference in the case of Ningamma (supra) where the victim had borrowed the vehicle from the real owner for going from Ilkal to his native place. There was proof that the victim had borrowed the said motorbike from the owner. However, in the instant case at hand, it is not placed on records or proved that the deceased/claimant had borrowed the vehicle from the owner, hence, the factual matrix of Ningamma's (supra) case is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the learned Tribunal opined that the victim was entitled to compensation as a 3rd party. Discussing further, reliance has been placed on United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. H. Lalhmingliana, (2006) 2 GauLT 538 where it was observed that in short, "even when the victim himself was responsible for the accident, he can, as an injured or his legal representative, when the victim dies as a result of the accident maintain an application for compensation under Section 163-A and compensation cannot be refused by the Tribunal on the ground that victim himself was responsible for the injuries suffered by him or the death which he met with". The present petition being filed under Section 163-A, it was the opinion of the learned Tribunal that there is no requirement for proof of negligence from any quarter and the Tribunal could not refuse compensation as such. This being the basis of the finding of the learned Tribunal, the award, as mentioned above was granted. Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent argues that the findings of the learned Tribunal should not be interfered with, the findings being appropriate.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. Goswami, has contended that the decision arrived at is in total contradiction to the principles of Torts laid down in the M.V.