Claimants are not entitled to compensation under Section 163-A if the deceased was the owner-driver of the vehicle, irrespective of negligence.

1. The appellants - claimants have filed this appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (henceforth 'Act of 1988') challenging the impugned award dated 9.4.2014 passed in Claim Case No. 19 of 2011 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 18.10.2009, Vijay Gupta alias Balaji Gupta (hereinafter 'Vijay Gupta') was travelling in Tata Qualis bearing registration No. CG 15-4758 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') along with his friends and relatives and was returning from Bhoramdev Temple after visiting philosophical sites. When the vehicle reached near Chapri village, it met with an accident near Katgo turn and turned turtle. In the aforementioned accident, Vijay Gupta and other passengers suffered injuries. They were taken to government hospital where doctor declared Vijay Gupta to be dead. The accident was reported to concerned police station based upon which crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. But as the driver died on account of accidental injuries suffered by him, closure report was filed.

3. Claimants who are widow and minor son filed an application under S.163 - A of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that late Vijay Gupta was doing the business of grains and kirana trading and earning Rs. 2,50,000 per annum. Claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

4. Non - applicant No. 1 - respondent No. 1, owner of offending vehicle, denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that on the date of accident, Vijay Gupta met with an accident due to his own negligence. Non - applicant No. 1 - respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. Offending vehicle was insured with non - applicant No. 2 - respondent No. 2, insurance company, under the comprehensive policy. Non - applicant No. 1 has complied with all the conditions of the insurance policy and the insurance company is liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.

5. Non - applicant No. 2 - insurance company submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application. There was breach of policy conditions. It is not proved that deceased was driving the vehicle under the employment of non - applicant No. 1 with valid permit and licence. Deceased was having only learner's licence. Deceased was not a third party hence the legal heirs cannot file application for grant of compensation. The income of the deceased was pleaded as Rs. 2,50,000 per annum, hence the application filed under S.163 - A of the Act is not maintainable. Liability is upon the claimants to prove that deceased Vijay Gupta was under the employment of respondent No. 1 - non - applicant No. 1 and the vehicle was being driven according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and permit. Offending vehicle was registered as private vehicle, but on the date of accident, it was plied as taxi.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleading and evidence placed on record by the respective parties, held that the accident of the motor vehicle was on account of negligence of the deceased driver himself. Deceased was not under employment of non - applicant 1. No relationship of employee - employer was established. The accident is on account of selfnegligence, therefore, application under S.163 - A of the Act of 1988 by legal heirs of the deceased is not maintainable. Income of the deceas