Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Ranjana Alias Komal and Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 5815 of 2014, 3161 of 2015
Decided on : 22-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Neeraj Khanna, Adv., Ravinder Arora, Adv., Vinod K Kanwal, Adv., Ashit Malik, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the representatives of the deceased step into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle and could not claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court also clarified the scope of the term 'owner-driver' as defined in GR-36, which restricts the meaning to only include the owner of the insured vehicle, and the representative of the owner will not fall within the ambit of PAC.
Headnote:
PAC - Motor Accident Claims - Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - 140, 163-A, GR-36 - The court discussed the issue of whether a borrower of a vehicle is covered under Personal Accident Cover (PAC) and referred to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, GR-36, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710. The court held that the representatives of the deceased step into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle and could not claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. It further clarified that the term 'owner-driver' as defined in GR-36 restricts the meaning to only include the owner of the insured vehicle, and the representative of the owner will not fall within the ambit of PAC. The claimants were entitled to Rs. 50,000 for 'no fault liability' as provided under Section 140 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a car accident where the deceased, who was driving a borrowed car, met with a fatal accident. The claimants and the insurer were in cross appeals against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the representatives of the deceased step into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle and could not claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. It also clarified that the term 'owner-driver' as defined in GR-36 restricts the meaning to only include the owner of the insured vehicle, and the representative of the owner will not fall within the ambit of PAC. The claimants were entitled to Rs. 50,000 for 'no fault liability' as provided under Section 140 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue for consideration was whether a borrower of a vehicle is covered under Personal Accident Cover (PAC) under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the representatives of the deceased step into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle and could not claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. It further clarified that the term 'owner-driver' as defined in GR-36 restricts the meaning to only include the owner of the insured vehicle, and the representative of the owner will not fall within the ambit of PAC. The claimants were entitled to Rs. 50,000 for 'no fault liability' as provided under Section 140 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the insurance company was allowed, and the appeal filed by the claimants was dismissed. The court modified the award to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 50,000 for no fault liability, and the insurer would be liable to pay the said amount.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two cross appeals bearing FAO Nos. 5815 of 2014 and 3161 of 2015.
2. The claimants and the insurer of Car bearing registration No. DL-0CD-8801 (for short ‘the car) are in cross appeals against the award dated 10.3.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MACT Case No. 398 of 2013.
3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals are that on 6.8.2012, Gaurav Kumar alongwith Anil Kumar, Sharesht @ Surinder, Avtar Singh and Baby Ayush were going in a car from village Kaul to Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar to attend the marriage of Sanejev Kumar. On 7.8.2012, when they were returning back, the car which was being driven by Manoj Kumar, struck against a stationary truck from behind. The truck was parked in the middle of the road without any indicator. As a result of the accident, Manoj Kumar received fatal injuries and lost his life.
4. A claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) was filed. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,85,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The amount awarded included a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of care and guardian and Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses.
5. Lerned counsel for the insurer argues that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under Section 163-A of the Act as the deceased was the borrower of the vehicle. The contention raised is that inspite of the fact that separate premium was paid for personal accident cover (PAC), the deceased would not be covered under the PAC as he was the borrower.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the registered owner, atleast the amount of PAC i.e. Rs. 2 lakh be awarded to the claimants.
7. The only issue for consideration in the present appeal is ‘whether a borrower of vehicle is covered under PAC or not?’
8. The issue that the borrower of a vehicle will also be covered under the PAC or not, is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710.
Supreme Court dealt with the following issue :-
“13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the question that falls for our consideration is whether the legal representatives of a person, who was driving a motor vehicle, after borrowing it from the real owner meets with an accident without involving any other vehicle, would be entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of MVA or under any other provision(s) of law and also whether the insurer who issued the insurance policy would be bound to indemnify the deceased or his legal representatives?”
The issue was decided and it was 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.”
9. 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 1
