The main legal point established is that the borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner for the purpose of claiming compensation under the insurance contract, emphasizing the insurer's liability for personal accident coverage.

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of aforementioned two appeals filed by the insurance company, as facts are analogous and common questions of law are involved therein. For reference, the facts are being taken from FAO No. 762 of 2021.

2. The Insurance company is in appeal before this Court against compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short 'the Tribunal') in a claim under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the mother, widow and two minor children of the deceased/victim who died in a motor vehicular accident.

3. Succinct facts shorn of unnecessary details are that Anil Kumar deceased had borrowed motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-14M-8691 from registered owner Devender Kumar respondent No.5 herein. By driving it on 20.06.2017, Anil Kumar was on way to village Surkhpur from village Bhadani for distributing milk. Near Dariya Bhatta, a donkey suddenly came on the road and collided with the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Coincidentally, his brother Sunil was also going to the same village on another motorcycle at the same time and was behind the deceased at that time. Anil Kumar was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak from where he was later shifted to Balaji Action Medical Hospital, Delhi. During treatment thereon 28.06.2017 the accident victim died. A complaint/DD No.19 dated 29.06.2017 was lodged at police station on the statement of Sunil, brother of the deceased. On these facts, the mother, widow and two sons, being the heirs of the deceased, filed claim petition before with learned Tribunal.

4. In the written statement filed by the contesting respondent/ Insurance Company, the claim was resisted, inter-alia, on the preliminary objections of maintainability; including outright denial of the accident in question. It was also pleaded that false DDR was registered by the petitioners in collusion with the real brother of the deceased with the local police. Insurance company was not liable to pay since there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that the deceased victim did not have a valid driving license.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

1) Whether the accident resulted into the death of Anil son of Sh. Mahender Singh has occurred due to involvement/ use of the vehicle i.e motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-14M-8691 by respondent No.1, as alleged ? OPP

2) If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP

3) Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license on the date of alleged accident and whether respondent No.1 has contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect ? OPR-2

4) Relief.

6. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal decided issues No.1 and 3 were in favour of the claimants in totality and issue No.2 against the appellant. Vide the impugned order, it awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant/respondents No.1 to 4.

7. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also been assisted by Ms. Akshita Chauhan learned Amicus Curiae.

9. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant. GR 37 of the Indian Motor Tariff reproduced in connected memo of appeal (FAO No. 3023/2021) speaks of Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver. It is not the insurer's case that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of personal accident of the owner or that the accident had resulted from the rash or negligent driving of the deceased. Obviously, the insurance policy covered the risk.

10. Anil Kumar borrower of the vehicle and after death, his legal representatives (claimant-respondents No.1 to 4 herein) stepped