Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2242
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Deepika Sharma And Others - Appellant
Versus
Deepak And Another - Respondent
FAO No. 137 of 2016
Decided On : 03-04-2019
Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant
Legal representatives of a person driving a borrowed vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and are not covered under the Personal Accident Cover (PAC) as defined in GR-36.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Personal Accident Cover - Section 163A - Section 140 - GR-36
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the dismissal of a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The deceased was driving a borrowed vehicle and met with an accident, leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the legal representatives of a person driving a borrowed vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The borrower steps into the shoes of the owner and is not covered under the Personal Accident Cover (PAC) as defined in GR-36. However, the claimants were entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the legal representatives of a person driving a borrowed vehicle are entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 163A, Section 140, and GR-36 to determine the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. It held that the borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and is not covered under the Personal Accident Cover. However, the claimants were entitled to 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the finding that the claimants were not entitled to compensation under Section 163A but were entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of the Act.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal against award dated 03.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act').
2. Appellants are legal heirs of Vishal Sharma (deceased). Owner and insurer (i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) of car bearing registration No. PB-02-BU-2562 (hereinafter referred to as 'vehicle') are respondents No.1 and 2 respectively in the appeal.
3. There is no challenge to the facts of the present case by the appellants that the vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and the deceased was borrower of the car. On 05.09.2014 when Vishal Sharma was driving the vehicle, he struck with the divider of the road and suffered injuries. He was taken to Escort Hospital, Amritsar, where, doctors declared him dead. DDR No. 18, dated 06.09.2014 was recorded at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar.
4. A claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was filed by the widow and parents of the deceased. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition relying upon the fact that the deceased was the borrower of the vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the amount under Personal Accident Cover (PAC) should have been awarded to the borrower of the vehicle as he stepped into the shoes of the owner. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants lacks merit.
6. The Supreme Court in Ningamma and another United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 , states that the borrower of the vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. 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 163A 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?"
The issue was decided and it was held as under:-
"19. We have already extracted Section 163A 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 163A 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 163A of the MVA."
7. It was held that the borrower steps into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle, his LR's cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.
8. The issue now arise is that once it is held that borrower steps into the shoes of owner can a contrary stand be taken that borrower will not be covered under PAC.
The answer is yes, he will not be covered under PAC.
It would be appropriate at this stage to quote Sections 140 and 163-A of the Act and GR-36 as under:-
"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
