The legal representatives of a deceased, who had borrowed a vehicle covered under a package policy, cannot claim compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as they are considered to step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, and neither the owner nor the borrower would come within the purview of the third party.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.

2. None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 despite service of notices on the said respondents as indicated in the Office Note, dated 13.03.2018.

3. This is an appeal u/s. 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, preferred against the judgment & award, dated 30.04.2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MAC. Case No. 464/2013, under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,67,000/-along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment, to the claimants who are the respondents No. 1 & 2, herein.

4. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, briefly, stated are as follows:

5. A claim petition u/s. 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 as claimants, claiming a compensation of Rs. 9,10,000/-from the appellant/Insurance Company on account of death of the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu in a motor vehicle accident.

6. It is stated in the claim petition that the respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants who are the sisters of the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu in the claim petition, stated in the petition that the deceased was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AM-5492 (Motorcycle). On 30.01.2010, the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu was riding the motorcycle along with his friend Aripaka Bhaemo and when he reached the Kamakhya cutting, suddenly, a pedestrian appeared in front of him to cross the road and the rider lost his control over the bike, as a result of which, the motorcycle hit the divider of the road and met with an accident, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person. After the accident, the injured A. Sombabu @ Sombabu was taken to the Railway Hospital for treatment where the deceased had succumbed to his injuries on the way to the Hospital.

7. A case was registered at Jalukbari PS as Jalukbari PS U.D. Case No. 11/2010. At the time of the accident, the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu who was aged about 18 years was a betel nut businessman and his monthly income was Rs. 3,300/-.

8. The respondent/appellant/Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing the written statement wherein, it was stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu himself and therefore, the respondent/ appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners/claimants.

9. The appellant/Insurance Company also contended that on 30.01.2010, the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu had borrowed the motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AM-5492 from the owner/insured Mrs. R. Laxmi and when he was driving the vehicle, he met with an accident resulting his death. Since the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu has stepped into the shoes of the owner-insured, the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu was, therefore, not a third party and his legal heirs are, hence, not entitled to get any compensation from the insurer of the vehicle i.e. appellant/Insurance Company.

10. On the pleadings of the parties; 3(three) issues were framed for determination by the learned Tribunal, which are, as under:

I. Whether the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu died due to sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.01.2010 at the time of using the vehicle bearing Regd. No. AS-01-AM-5492 (Motorcycle)?

II. Whether the driving license and insurance policy were valid on the day of accident to cover up the accident?

III. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation?

11. While adjudicating on the above issues, the learned Tribunal made a consolidated assessment of the evidence produced and on such consolidated appreciation of the evidence; it has been, inter alia, found that the accident had