Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation cannot be granted to close relatives of the vehicle owner because the owner cannot simultaneously be the claimant and the recipient of the liability.

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

(Order on Board)

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the question of fact and law involved and being arising out of a common accident, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. In these appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1881 (for short the “MV Act”), the three appellants/claimants have called in question order dated 15.07.2016, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, whereby their application for grant of compensation has been rejected finding no merit.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is bad, illegal and unsustainable in law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the claimants are entitled for compensation.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this appeal on the ground that the claimants being close relative of the owner and driver are not entitled for compensation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein-above and went through the record.

5. In the case at hand, the offending vehicle was owned by Ramadhar Singh (respondent No.01), which was driven by his son- Ashok Singh (respondent No.02) on the date of occurrence and, in the accident in question, Ashok Singh’s son and wife died. The claimants being other children of Ashok Singh (driver) filed application under Section 163 of the MV Act for grant of compensation, which was rejected by the learned Claims tribunal on the ground that the deceased persons are close relative of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, being daughter-in-law and grandson of the owner and wife and son of the driver, as such, not entitled for compensation under Section 163 A of the MV Act.

6. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni Devi and others ¹(2008) 5 SCC 736 may be noticed herein profitably wherein in Para-11 it has been held as under:

“11. The liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to.”

7. In view of aforesaid dicta laid down in Rajni Devi (supra), the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim applications of the claimants, as they are not entitled for the compensation being close relative of the owner of the vehicle i.e. grand-children. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in these appeals and, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed