The deceased, being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle driven by himself, could not maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (for short ’the tribunal’) by which the claim petition filed by the claimantappellant under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act of 1988’) was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the son of the appellant was going on a motorcycle bearing NO.RJ-20-SH-4658 and he met with an accident on 06.05.2010. He submits that the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition only on a technical ground that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle, so, the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163A of the Act of 1988.

3. Counsel further submits that the said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be quashed by this Court.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment and the documents available on record.

5. Perusal of the impugned judgment and issue No.1 indicate that the accident has occurred because of negligent driving of the deceased as he was in a drunken state.

6. Now the question involved in this case is that whether the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 was maintainable or not?

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court has decided this issue in the case of Ram Khiladi & anr. Vs. The Union of India Insurance Company and anr., reported in 2020 (1) RAR 17 (SC) and the same has been answered in Para Nos.5 to 5.6 as under:-

"5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have also perused and considered the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court and the evidence on record. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in a case where the driver, owner and the insurance company of another vehicle involved in an accident and whose driver was negligent are not joined as parties to the claim petition, meaning thereby that no claim petition is filed against them and the claim petition is filed only against the owner and the insurance company of another vehicle which was driven by the deceased himself and the deceased being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle driven by himself, whether the insurance company of the vehicle driven by the deceased himself would be liable to pay the compensation under Section 163A of the Act?; Whether the deceased not being a third party to the vehicle No. RJ 02 SA 7811 being in the shoes of the owner can maintain the claim under Section 163A of the Act from the owner of the said vehicle?

5.1 The learned Tribunal held that even in absence of the driver, owner and the insurance company of another vehicle involved in an accident and whose driver was solely negligent, the application under Section 163A of the Act would be maintainable against the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle which was driven by the deceased himself, firstly on the ground that the deceased was in employment of the owner of the vehicle which was driven by him and secondly, in an application under Section 163A of the Act, the negligence is not required to be established and proved and it is enough to establish and prove that the deceased has died in a vehicular accident and while driving a vehicle. The High Court has not agreed with the same and by the impugned Judgment and Order has held that as the claimants have not filed the claim petition against the owner of another vehicle whose driver was in fact negligent, even as per the claimants and the claim petition should have been filed by the claimants against the owner of another vehicle to seek the compensation, the application under Section 163A of the Act against the insurance company of the vehicle dr