Legal representatives stepping into the shoes of the owner of a motor vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The definition of 'owner-driver' under GR-36 of India Motor Tariff restricts the entitlement to Personal Accident Cover.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The award dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh [for brevity 'the Tribunal'] has been assailed by the insurer of Scooter bearing registration No. CH-03C-4425 [hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'].

2. The claimants have been arrayed as respondents No.1 & 2 and owner i.e. M/s Orient Coal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh has been arrayed as respondent No.3.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 11.12.2008, Amandeep Singh was riding the offending vehicle. When he reached near, Gaushala of village Mubarikpur, a stray cow suddenly came on the road, he suddenly applied brakes and as a result, he lost the balance and struck against electric pole. He sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries.

4. A claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity 'the Act'] was filed by parents of the deceased. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Oriental India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Silky and another, (2011) 161 PunLR 1, allowed the petition and awarded Rs. 3,88,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum.

5. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the offending vehicle was owned by a Private Limited Company and Insurance Policy was also in the name of that Company. He further contends that the deceased was either an employee or a borrower of the offending vehicle, consequently, the legal heirs of the deceased cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. He further argues that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the decision of this Court in Silky's case (supra), as no extra premium has been paid in the present case to cover the risk of the driver.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants defends the award and argues that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and hence legal heirs were entitled to the compensation.

7. The Supreme Court in case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (2009) 13 SCC 710, 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 provisions of law and also whether the insurer who issued the insurance policy would be bound to indemnify the deceased or his legal representatives?"

8. 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 owner himself cannot be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. It was also held that as the borrower of the offending vehicle also stepped into the shoes of owner, the petition under Section 163-A is not maintainable.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants could not dispute the fact that there was no additiona