JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') in 'File No. 82/Claim', titled, 'Karamat Hussain v. Reliance General Ins. Ltd. & Anr.', whereby learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum throughout till realization in favour of the petitioner No.1.

2. The award has been impugned by the appellant-Insurance Co. on the following grounds:

(a) that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award did not consider the fact that respondent No. 1 did not fall within the definition of 'owner-driver' as defined in the Policy and as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, for getting the benefit under Personal Accident Cover for owner-driver, the three mandatory requirements were required to be fulfilled.

(b) that the learned Tribunal, while passing the award, completely ignored section-III of the Policy pertaining to personal accident to owner-driver, as the compensation under the Policy for Personal Accident Cover was payable only in such cases where the injury suffered by the insured was death, loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye and 100% permanent total disablement from injuries other than the above named injuries. The respondent No. 1 neither suffered any loss of limb nor 100% disablement as defined and provided in the Policy, therefore, no compensation could have been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1.

3. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent No. 1/claimant had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and as such, he was not entitled to any compensation payable under the Policy in terms of Personal Accident Cover to owner-driver and further that as per section-III, the liability of the company was limited to the conditions/contingencies provided under section-III of the Policy. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in 'Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Balwant Rai & Ors., 2017 AAC 121 (J&K)', Division Bench judgment of this court in 'The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dwarka Nath & Ors. decided on 31.01.2023' and judgment of the Apex Court in 'Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. The United India Insurance Co. & Anr. , AIR 2020 SC 527.

4. Per contra, Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that the respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle with the authorization of the owner therefore, the respondent No. 1 stepped into the shoes of owner-driver, as such the appellant/insurance company is under obligation to pay the compensation to respondent No. 1. He further argued that the appellant has suffered disability to an extent of 35%, as such the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation in favour of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon judgment of the High Court of Madras in 'Shanmugam v. Manivasagam & Anr., decided on 11.02.2021'.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short the Act) on account of disablement caused to him as a result of the injuries suffered in a vehicular accident on 19.11.2013 near Shamshan Ghat Dalogra within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rajouri, while driving Car No. JK11A/5500 owned by respondent No. 2 while