JUDGMENT

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant is absent.

2. In this appeal, the appellant being father of the deceased Ajay Kumar Mishra, has prayed for setting aside the judgement/award dated 30.10.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in MACT Case No. 08 of 2008 and further to award an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs along with interest.

3. The careful examination of the judgment impugned in this case reveals that on 08.10.2007, the deceased was coming back from Ghaat to Pithoragarh after participating in a funeral procession by a motor cycle baring no. U.A. 05/2751 and when he reached at Matela Band, the motor cycle met with an accident due to technical fault in the motor cycle and Ajay Kumar Mishra died at the spot.

4. The appellant claimed that he was a competent motor mechanic and had a workshop at Bin in Pithoragarh earning an income 8,000/- Hence, a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs be paid. In this case, it is admitted that the vehicle was owned by sole opposite party Mr. Deepak Chuphal and it was not ensured with the insurance company. The opposite party took the plea that he was the owner of the motorcycle bearing no. UA 05 2751 at the time of accident and he had given the motor cycle to his brother Mr. Mahesh Singh and as there was some defect in the motorcycle, therefore, Mr. Mahesh Singh gave the motorcycle in the workshop of deceased Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra for its repair. On the date of accident Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra had taken motor cycle to Ghaat for attending the funeral ceremony, without permission of Mr. Mahesh Singh Mehra. While coming to know that the motorcycle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, motorcycle fell into a deep gorge and the said Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, it is claimed that the death of the deceased occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself.

5. The learned Additional District Judge/Presiding tribunal framed four issues and address himself to decide whether on 08.10.2007 the deceased was travelling the aforesaid motor cycle and because of technical error there was an accident and what is the effect thereon; whether the accident occurred due to own fault of the deceased; whether the deceased had taken the motor cycle without the permission of the opposite party or his representative; and to what relief the appellant is entitled to. The learned Additional Judge, Presiding the Tribunal, at paragraph 17 relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3056, and held that the deceased was driving the vehicle after borrowing it from real owner. Thus, he steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. His legal heirs could not claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. He further held that the Courts in India has held that in cases where the vehicle was being taken by the person who was not owner of the vehicle but was the borrower of the vehicle step into the shoes the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, his legal representative cannot claim compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant raised only one issue i.e. the applicability of Section 140 before the amendment deleting chapter X altogether. In other words, the amending Act of 32 of 2019 was passed by the Parliament w.e.f. 01.09.2019 and the Sections 140 to 144 were deleted. In order to appreciate this case the exact provision has to be analysed. Section 140 provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases of on principle of no fault.

“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 vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shal