The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the M.V. Act, the liability of the insurance company depends on the interpretation of the provisions regarding third-party claims, and in this case, the deceased, being the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, could not be considered a third party.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.64 of 2003 by which the learned Tribunal directed the appellant-insurance company to pay half of the amount of Rs.7,20,000/- after deducting the amount as already paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act to the claimant, through an account payee cheque with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition within one month from the date of the said judgment and award dated 30.08.2008 to the respondent-claimants.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased –Rameshwar Prasad Singh @ Ramesh Prasad Singh on 08.02.2001 while riding a borrowed motorcycle of the owner, the motorcycle was hit by a scooter which scooter was being rashly and negligently driven and by such motorcycle accident, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The appellant-insurance company is the insurer of the Hero-Honda Motorcycle. The insurance policy concerned is a ‘Motorcycle Policy B Act With Theft’. It is pertinent to mention here that no premium was paid regarding Personal Accident Coverage (P.A.C). The insurance company contested the claim of the claimants for payment of compensation.

4. The learned tribunal framed the following four issues which are as under:-

(i) Is the claim petition maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending scooter or by the own motorcycle of the deceased bearing no. BR 1 L-4838?

(iii) Whether the applicant/claimant is entitled to get compensation and from whom?

(iv) To what relief or reliefs, the applicant is entitled to?

And held that the claim petition is maintainable as the same has been filed for compensation in respect of an accident following death arising out of the use of motorcycle. In respect of issue no.2, it was concluded by the learned tribunal that this was a case of contributory negligence and at the time of accident, both the driver of the scooter and the motorcycle were driving their respective vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to mistake of both the drivers, the accident took place. In respect of issue nos. 3 & 4, the learned tribunal considering the fact that the vehicle borrowed by the petitioner was covered by the appellant-insurance company held that the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount.

5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. & Anr. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 para -9.4 to 9.9 of which reads as under:-

“Xxxxxxxxxxx

9.4. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Ningamma. In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, as such, in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending