SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 2237

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Malkiat Kaur And Others - Appellant
Versus
Salinder Verma And Others - Respondent
F.A. O. No. 4827 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Raghubir Tejpal, Advocate, for the Appellant

Legal representatives of a person driving a borrowed vehicle are not entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as they step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Borrower of Vehicle - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A - Sections 140 and 163-A - The court discussed the issue of whether a borrower of a vehicle is covered under the Personal Accident Cover (PAC) and referred to 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 legal representatives of a person driving a borrowed vehicle are not entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as they step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. The court also referred to the provisions of Sections 140 and 163-A of the Act and GR-36, and clarified the scope of the Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver.

Fact of the Case:

A motor vehicular accident took place resulting in the death of the driver. The claimants, including the deceased's widow, minor daughter, and parents, filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claimants were not entitled to compensation as the deceased was the borrower of the vehicle.

Issues: The main issue was whether a borrower of a vehicle is covered under the Personal Accident Cover (PAC) and whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the legal representatives of a person driving a borrowed vehicle are not entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as they step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. The court also clarified the scope of the Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver under GR-36.

Final Decision: The court modified the award to grant the claimants Rs. 50,000 for 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of the Act, and held the insurer liable to pay the said amount.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - The appellants have filed the present appeal against the award dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that a motor vehicular accident took place on 08.3.2012. Ravi Dutt (deceased) along with Raj Singh, Sunil Kumar and Pardeep, was going from Kurukshetra to village Khijarpura in car bearing registration No.HR-07-J- 7796, being driven by Ravi Dutt. At about 4:30 p.m. suddenly a stray cow came in front of the car and in the process of saving the cow, Ravi Dutt lost control over the car and hit into safeda tree standing adjacent to the road, as a result, the car was turned over and Ravi Dutt died at the spot due to the injuries sustained in the accident. A claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was filed by the widow, minor daughter and parents of the deceased.

3. The Tribunal after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence on record held that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation as deceased was the borrower of the vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased being a borrower was covered under the PAC.

5. The only issue for consideration in the present appeal is 'whether a borrower of vehicle is covered under PAC or not?'

6. The issue that the borrower of a vehicle will also be covered under the PAC or not, is based on argument arising from decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 .

7. 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?"

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."

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 principle of no fault - (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicles shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top