Legal representatives stepping into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if the driver was the owner of the vehicle. Only the registered owner holding an effective driving license is entitled to the Personal Accident Cover under GR-36.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - The award dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala [for brevity 'the Tribunal'] has been assailed by the legal heirs of Ravinder Kumar (deceased), being aggrieved of dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity 'the Act'].

2. The appellants are widow, two minor children and parents of Ravinder Kumar. The owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-54C-0569 [hereinafter referred to as 'motorcycle'] and insurer of the motorcycle, i.e., Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. have been arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 respectively in the appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2015, Ravinder Kumar had gone to Sadhaura Town on the motorcycle for some personal work. The motorcycle was owned by respondent No.1. When he reached near Dera Gurdev Singh, Rakba Village Sarawan, District Yamuna Nagar, the motorcycle was hit by an unknown truck. As a result of the impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to Community Health Centre, Sadhaura for treatment from where he was referred to General Hospital Yamuna Nagar. Thereafter, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but on his way to PGI Chandigarh, he succumbed to injuries. FIR No.94, dated 07.07.2015 was registered at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar.

4. A claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was filed by legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (13) SCC 710. The claim petition was dismissed as the deceased was not the registered owner of the motorcycle but was merely a borrower of the motorcycle. Aggrieved of the dismissal of the claim petition, the present appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that even if the deceased was the borrower of the motorcycle, an additional premium of Rs. 50/- was paid on account of Personal Accident Cover (PAC), hence, the legal heirs were entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- under the PAC.

6. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants deserves rejection. 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 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?"

7. 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."

8. 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 pr