Claims from individuals borrowing vehicles do not hold against owners or insurers under relevant acts.

1. Dismissal of the claim petition preferred by the parents of the deceased, who was driving the jeep involved in the accident, is the subject - matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. The sequence of events shows that deceased, by name Sharda Prasad, aged about 22 years, was driving a jeep bearing No. CG 16 - A 0053, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 on 11.3.2011. When the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, the driver lost control and the vehicle met with an accident, causing fatal injuries to the driver of the jeep, who succumbed to the same. This led to a claim petition preferred before the Tribunal by the parents under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, claiming compensation against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. It was contended that the deceased was actually working as a driver and used to earn a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month. The claim was opposed on the part of the respondents, particularly by the insurance company, to the effect that no liability could be fastened upon them; as it does not come within the purview of the policy. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the award holding that the incident was self - invited / inflicted accident and that the deceased was driving the vehicle after consuming liquor as disclosed from Exh. P1 (post - mortem report). It was accordingly that the claim petition was dismissed, which is now the subject - matter of consideration in this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not correct in dismissing the claim petition, merely finding fault of the deceased driver on the basis of post - mortem report that the deceased had consumed liquor. It is contended that no doctor was examined and as such, the course pursued by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the relevant provisions of law or facts and requires to be interdicted by this court.

4. The learned counsel representing the insurance company submits that it is a case of 'self accident' and nobody else can be blamed, which does not come within the purview of the policy issued by the respondent No. 2.

5. The point to be considered is whether the death caused to the driver of the jeep comes within the purview of S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 or whether it is covered under any specific terms of agreement / contract arising out of the policy issued in favour of the respondent No. 1?

6. The question whether a person, who meets with an accident while driving a vehicle after borrowing the same from the owner, is entitled to claim compensation against the owner and insurer had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC). After meticulous analysis of the legal provisions, a finding was rendered to the effect that such person virtually "steps into the shoes of the owner" and as such, he cannot raise a valid claim against the owner or the insurer. The issue has been considered quite recently as well by the Apex Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2020 ACJ 627 (SC), wherein it has been made clear by the Apex Court that such a claim will never be maintainable even under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988.

7. In the above circumstance, we do not require any second thought to hold that the legal position stands settled and answered against the appellant. The appellants do not have a case that there was any wider coverage or personal accident claim under the policy and in the absence of any such coverage, the course pursued by the Tribunal dismissing the claim is not liable to be interdicted by this court. Whether the deceased had consumed alcohol or not (as reflected from Exh. P1, post - mortem report, does not require to be gone into