The legal representatives of a deceased in a motor accident step into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle and are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

This appeal arises from the award dated 07.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. Bare facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that on 23.10.2010 at about 5.00 PM, Yogender and Naresh were going on a motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-34D-1164 to village Kakrala. The motor cycle was being driven by Yogender. The motor cycle was owned by Harender. All of a sudden, four-five wild cows (Neel Gai) came on the road and struck against the motor cycle. As a result, Yogender fell on the road and sustained injuries. He was taken to CHC Kaniana, and then to Health Way Research and Diagnostics Hospital, Rewari, where he died. DDR No. 4 dated 30.10.2010 was registered at Police Station Kaniana.

3. Legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). In the claim petition, owner of the vehicle was arrayed as respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 was insurer of the vehicle.

4. The Tribunal while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (13) SCC 710, held that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation under Section 163-A of the Act as the deceased was borrower of the vehicle.

5. The claimants have filed this appeal being aggrieved of the impugned award. The contention raised is that since in Ningamma's case (supra), it has been held that borrower steps into the shoes of the owner, therefore, borrower should be covered in Personal Accident Cover.

6. The issue raised is based on decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma's case (supra). The Supreme Court held as under :-

“19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA.”

It was held that the representatives of the deceased step into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle, hence could not claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.

7. It would be appropriate at this stage to quote Sections 140 and 163-A of the Act and GR-36.

“140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault – (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicles shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty – five thousand rupees.

(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful ac