The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'owner-driver' in relation to Personal Accident Cover and the entitlement of legal heirs to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

Aggrieved of the award dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in MACT Case No. 45 of 2015 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act'), two separate appeals have been filed. One appeal i.e. FAO No. 8031 of 2015 has been filed by the insurer and in other i.e. FAO No. 1864 of 2016 the claimants are in appeal. As both the appeals arise out of same accident and one award, these are being disposed of vide common order.

2. The facts of the case are that on 07.08.2013, Malook Singh was driving the tractor bearing registration No. HR-25D-0413 (hereinafter referred to as 'tractor') owned by respondent No.1 (before the Tribunal). The tractor was loaded with sand and on its way it turned turtle. As a result thereof, Malook Singh came underneath the tractor and succumbed to the injuries. His body was taken to Community Health Centre, Dabwali for getting conducted postmortem. DDR No. 17, dated 07.09.2012 was registered in Police Station City Dabwali.

3. A claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased.

4. In the claim proceedings, it was pleaded that the deceased was working as a driver with respondent No.1 i.e. owner of tractor and used to earn Rs.3300/- per month. The said averment was denied by respondent No.1. The claimants failed to prove that the deceased was employed as a driver by respondent No.1. The Tribunal further relied upon the proceedings initiated under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Ex.P-3, wherein, it was prima-facie shown that the deceased had borrowed the tractor from respondent No.1 and dismissed the claim petition was dismissed relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710.

5. There was a premium paid for Personal Accident Cover (PAC), the Tribunal held that borrower had stepped into the shoes of the owner and awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under PAC.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents produced by them.

7. Learned counsel for the insurer argues that the deceased was not owner-cum-driver of tractor, he was not entitled to PAC.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner, he was duly covered under PAC. He further argues that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.

9. There is no challenge by the claimants to the fact that the deceased was the borrower of tractor. The issue now arises is whether the legal heirs of the borrower can claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act or not. The Supreme Court in Ningamma's case (supra) 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?" 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 owne