Legal representatives of a deceased driver who borrowed the vehicle from the owner cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the deceased steps into the shoes of the owner and thus cannot be both the claimant and the recipient of compensation.

__________________________________________________________

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral):

Appellants have filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 02.11.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in MAC No.44-S/2 of 2010, titled as Anjana and another versus Kubja and others.

By way of award dated 02.11.2012, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, filed by the appellants.

For the sake of convenience, parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to by the learned Tribunal.

Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-

4.1. The claimants, being widow and minor son of Rajesh, have filed the claim petition, under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, seeking compensation, on account of death of Rajesh on 03.05.2010, involving Vehicle No.HP63A-7300, owned and registered, in the name of predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 and insured with respondent No.5.

4.2. According to the claimants, Rajesh was driving Vehicle No.HP63A-7300 (vehicle in question), with the consent and authority of the registered owner, who was also sitting with him. When, the said vehicle reached at Chaila Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, at about 10:00 AM, on 03.05.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident, in which, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants and owner has expired.

When put to notice, this claim petition has been contested by the respondents. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed the joint reply, denying the factum of accident. The contents of paras 5 to 7 have been denied, mainly for want of knowledge, whereas, contents of paras 8 to 11 have been admitted to be correct. In addition to this, it has been pleaded that respondent No.3 was also travelling in the ill-fated vehicle and sustained injuries.

Another plea has also been taken that respondent No.1 Kubja is also legal heir of Rajesh and as such, she is also entitled for the compensation.

Insurance Company has filed the separate reply by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; the claimants are not entitled to any claim; the Insurance Company is not under legal obligations to indemnify the claimants, as the vehicle in question, at the time of accident was driven by a person, who was not a regular/paid driver, but, was a family member and was not holding a valid and effective driving license; the vehicle in question was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. Thus, the insurance company has prayed that the claim petition may kindly be dismissed.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 04.07.2011:

1). Whether death of Sh. Rajesh was caused due to involvement of Vehicle No.HP-63A-7300 ? OPP.

2). If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? OPP.

3). Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the car at the time of accident ? OPR.

4). Whether Car No.HP63A-7300 was being driven without registration certificate ? OPR.

5). Relief.

Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. After closure of the evidence, the learned Tribunal, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the claim petition.

Feeling aggrieved from the said award, present appeal has been filed before this Court, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that Rajesh stepped into the shoes of his father, as, he was driving the ill-fated car with the consent of his father.

The case law relied upon by the learned Tribunal is also s