A person driving a borrowed vehicle is deemed to have "stepped into the shoes of the owner" and cannot claim compensation as a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, remaining entitled only to the Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver provided in the policy.

ORDER :

HIRDESH, J.

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 31/08/2023 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Vidsiha (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 05/2020, whereby compensation has been awarded to the claimant. The appellant seeks reduction of the amount of compensation so awarded.

2. By the impugned Award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,05,800/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization on account of injuries sustained by claimant-Shafiuddin in a motor accident.

3. Brief the facts of the case are that on 24/09/2018 claimant and his family were traveling in the vehicle in question, a car bearing registration No. MP04-CP-2366. While attempting to save an animal near the Kirravada culvert, the car in question collided with the culvert, causing serious injuries to the claimant. He was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Bina, from where he was referred to Bansal Hospital, Bhopal. He received treatment while admitted there. On the date of the accident a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

4. The owner of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex-parte and the Insurance Company filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

5.After framing the issues and recording evidence adduced by the parties, the Claims Tribunal passed the impugned Award granting compensation as stated hereinabove.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submitted that the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to law and the material available on record. It is contended that the claimant himself was negligent and solely responsible for the accident and, therefore, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, as the driver does not fall within the definition of a third party and no additional premium was paid under the policy to cover the risk of the driver. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned Award be modified.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant supported the impugned Award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the claimant was not in the position of the owner of the offending vehicle and, therefore, the claimant was not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

10. The High Court of Kerala in the case of Vijayarajan (supra) in para 5 has held as under:-

"5. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the deceased cannot be treated as a driver within the meaning of the personal accident cover. According to him, the insurance policy provides for compensation as contained in the policy of insurance, if the accident occurs when it is driven by the owner who is also the driver. In order to resolve this controversy, it is necessary to refer to the terms of the policy. It is true that in the premium an amount of Rs.50/- has been paid for the compulsory PA to owner-driver and it may at first blush appear to support the case of respondents 1 to 4. However, on a further scrutiny of the elaborate clauses contained in the policy, we feel that the question is to be answered against respondents 1 to 4. The policy speaks about it being a liability only policy and thereafter it provides for dealing with liability with the parties. Thereafter, it provides personal accident cover for owner-driver. "

11. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the claimant was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, the claimant stepped into the shoes