B.S. WALIA, J.

1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 cites paragraph Nos.5.6 to 5.9 of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Ramkhiladi and another versus United India Insurance Company and another’, 2020 AIR (SC) 527 and contends that in the instant case, as per the terms of the contract of Insurance, the owner of the vehicle was having personal accident insurance for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, therefore, since the deceased borrower stepped into the shoes of the owner, he would be entitled to the aforementioned amount on account of personal accident cover as available to the owner. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

“5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver