Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - The insurer has filed the present appeal impugning the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dated 7.12.2017, whereby, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the respondents – claimants, has been allowed and the appellant has been held jointly and severally liable along with respondent No.6 (the owner of the motorcycle) to pay the compensation.

2. Brief facts as disclosed in the claim petition are that on 5.3.2015 in the area of Village Pansara, a vehicular accident took place involving Motor Cycle No.HR02-AE-1005 (herein for short ‘the offending vehicle’), wherein, Sajid Khan lost his life. It was pleaded that on 5.3.2015 Sajid Khan (deceased) was going to his house after finishing his work on the motorcycle. Rashid Ali – respondent No.6 was following him on another motorcycle. When they reached near the railway crossing of village Pansara, then some unknown tractor-trolley hit against the motorcycle of Sajid Khan, who suffered multiple injuries and died due to the same. An FIR regarding the accident was also lodged. Asserting that the accident had taken place because of the use of the motorcycle which was owned by respondent No.6 and which was insured with the appellant the claim petition was filed.

3. The Ld. Tribunal concluded that the claimants had been able to establish that the accident had been caused because of the use of the motorcycle driven by the deceased Sajid Khan in which he suffered fatal injuries and died. Further as the claim was under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants were only required to prove that the death had occurred because of the use of the motor vehicle and negligence was not required to be proved, the claim petition was allowed. The argument of the insurance company that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 163-A as the deceased was not a third party was rejected by holding that the insurance policy Ex.R2/ Ex.R/3 was a comprehensive insurance/ package policy, which was valid on the date of the accident. A decision of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jasmer Singh and another 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 325 was relied upon.

4. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3200/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 17 (deceased aged 26 years). The loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.4,89,600/-. Amount of Rs.5000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.2000/- as ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.2500/- towards ‘loss of estate’ were also awarded. In all, compensation of Rs.4,99,100/- along with interest was awarded.

5. Challenging the Award, Ld. Counsel for the appellant – Insurer has primarily relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and contended that under Section 163-A the liability is on the owner. A borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner. And the owner cannot both be claimant as well as recipient. As the deceased was the brother of the owner of the motorcycle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner, hence no claim for compensation for his death was maintainable.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the claimants on the other hand argued that the ratio of Ningamma’s case is not attracted in this case as in Ningamma’s case the policy was an ‘Act Only’ policy whereas in the instant case there a comprehensive/ package policy. He also relied on various decisions of this Court in support of his contentions.

7. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties in my view there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation as the deceased being the brother of the owner would step into the shoes of the owner and it would be a case of the same person being both the claimant and recipient.

8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent is right in his