J U D G M E N T

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 27.02.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Award‟) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in MACT Case no.449279/2016, titled Ravi Prakash Mishra v. M/s Adventure Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr..

2. In the Claim Petition, it was the case of the respondent no. 1 that he is an employee of the respondent no. 2 herein, that is, Adventure Security Services Pvt. Ltd. On 17.02.2006, the respondent no.1 along with one guard, namely Shri Manjay, was going on a Signature Not Veri fied Digitally Signed MAC.APP.576/2018 Page 1 of 20 motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-8SAB-7792, which was registered in the name of the respondent no. 2, for some office work. The motorcycle was being driven by the respondent no.1. At about 3.30 a.m., when they reached near Prem Bari Pul, Keshav Puram, Delhi, the motorcycle hit the divider due to heavy fog and less visibility and the respondent no.1 suffered grievous injuries. The Police Control Room van took the respondent no.1 to the Trauma Centre, Delhi. The respondent no.1 remained under treatment from 17.02.2006 till 16.03.2006. In the said accident, the respondent no.1 lost both his eyes and there was a loss of jaw and facial deformity. The Disability Certificate issued by the Guru Nanak Eye Hospital, New Delhi states that the respondent no.1 has suffered 100%

permanent disability.

3. The appellant challenges the Impugned Award on the ground that the respondent no.1 was himself driving the motorcycle, which is owned by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 has, therefore, stepped into the shoes of the owner/respondent no.2, who is also the employer of the respondent no.1. The appellant contends that the respondent no. 1, therefore, cannot be considered as a “third party” and the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation under the „Act Policy‟.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 550, and in Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2009)

Signature Not Veri fied Digitally Signed MAC.APP.576/2018 Page 2 of 20

13 SCC 710, submits that the driver, stepping into the shoes of the owner/his employer, cannot be a recipient of the compensation, as the liability to pay the same is upon the owner itself. He submits that the driver cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured/borrowed vehicle, as he was in the actual possession and control of the vehicle in the capacity of the owner when he is specifically employed for the purpose of driving the insured vehicle.

5. The appellant further contends that as the respondent no. 1 hit the divider and sustained injuries by his own rash and negligent driving, and as there was no other vehicle involved in the accident, therefore, the respondent no.1 is not entitled to any compensation and the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the respondent no.1.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munesh Devi & Ors., Neutral Citation no. 2012:DHC:3057; and of the High Court of Karnataka in Sangeetha & Ors. v. Krishna Chari & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 315, submits that if the premium for the insurance policy is duly paid by the owner of the vehicle for the driver of the vehicle, even when the vehicle was borrowed by a person employed to drive the said vehicle or where the vehicle was being driven by the employee of the owner of the vehicle, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. He submits that, therefore, no infirmity can be found in the Impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal.

Signature Not Veri fied Digitally Signed MAC.APP.576/2018 Page 3 of 20

7. The learned counsel