The claimant driving a borrowed vehicle is not entitled to compensation under Section 163-A as they step into the owner's shoes.

1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 17.8.2009, whereby the learned Seventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur awarded a sum of Rs. 4,53,500 to the claimant under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act .

2. At the outset, it may be stated that though the claimant filed a claim petition under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act , the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation not by following the Schedule under S.163 - A but by following the principles under S.166 of the Act. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000 for medical expenses whereas in terms of maximum of Rs. 15,000 can be awarded in a claim petition filed under S.163 - A of the Act. It is more than obvious that basic principles of law of compensation under S.163 - A had not been followed. What can be awarded under S.163 - A is only the amount payable under Second Schedule. When a claim petition under S.163 - A of the Act is entertained, the Tribunal cannot award a penny less or a penny more than what is payable under the Schedule.

3. The main grievance of the insurance company in this case is that even as per the case of the claimant, he himself had borrowed the vehicle. He was driving the vehicle when it met with an accident with an unknown truck and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable.

4. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC), it is urged that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput argued that this defence has not been raised before the court below or before this court.

6. It is true that this defence has not been specifically raised but the insurance company both before the learned Tribunal as well as this court has denied the liability to pay compensation for a person driving the car. As far as law in this regard is concerned, the same is well settled.

7. In Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC), the Apex Court was dealing with a case the facts of which are similar to the facts of the present case. In that case, the deceased had borrowed a motor cycle from the owner. He while driving the motor cycle hit a bullock cart, but no other motor vehicle was involved. The Apex Court held that the borrower of the motor cycle steps into the shoes of the owner and since the owner cannot himself be a recipient of compensation, as liability to pay the same is on him, the borrower in case of injury or his legal heirs in the case of death of borrower of the vehicle are not entitled to claim compensation. The question considered by the Apex Court has been set out in para 13 of the report which reads as follows:
"(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 S.163 - A of the 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 representative?..."

8. The Apex Court after referring to the legal provisions and various other judgments including Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi , 2008 ACJ 1441 (SC), held as follows:
"(18) In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi , 2008 ACJ 1441 (SC), wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a p