IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bajrang Singh and Another . . . . Appellants Vs.

Bijender and Another . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 02.04.2026 Pronounced on: 06.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera3ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Dharmender Kumar Sihag, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) for respondent No.2- Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the Award dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tri- bunal, Gurugram, whereby the claim pe00on filed under Sec0on 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been partly allowed and compensa0on to the ex- tent of ₹1,00,000/- has been awarded on account of personal accident cover, while declining the claim under the statutory provisions of the Act.

2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that their son Amit died in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 10.06.2020, while he was riding motorcycle bearing registra0on No. HR-14Q-2322, which he had borrowed from respondent No.1. The accident allegedly occurred due to collision with an un- known vehicle. FIR No.343 dated 11.06.2020 was registered in that regard. The claimants, being parents of the deceased, filed a pe00on under Sec0on 163-A of the Act claiming compensa0on on structured formula basis.

3. Upon considera0on of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded a find- ing that the deceased was himself riding the motorcycle, which had been bor- rowed from its owner and, therefore, he stepped into the shoes of the owner. Relying upon the se=led legal posi0on, the Tribunal held that the claim under Sec0on 163-A was not maintainable, as the deceased could not be treated as a third party. However, since the insurance policy included personal accident cover for the owner-driver, compensa0on of ₹1,00,000/- was awarded to the claimants.

4. Assailing the said findings, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the effect of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, whereby Sec0on 164 has been introduced providing for fixed compensa0on of ₹5,00,000/- in case of death. It is argued that the said provision being beneficial in nature ought to have been applied and the claimants should have been awarded the statutory amount irrespec0ve of fault. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has supported the Award and submi=ed that the deceased, having borrowed the vehicle, cannot be treated as a third party and, therefore, the claim is not maintainable under Sec0on 163-A or even under the scheme of the Act. It is fur- ther submi=ed that the liability of the insurer is strictly governed by the con- tract of insurance and, in the absence of any addi0onal coverage, compensa0on has rightly been restricted to ₹1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the par0es and perused the record.

7. The primary ques0on, which arises for considera0on is whether the legal representa0ves of a person, who was driving a borrowed vehicle, can maintain a claim under Sec0on 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 has categori- cally held that a person, who borrows a vehicle from its owner and drives it, steps into the shoes of the owner and, therefore, cannot be treated as a third party. It was further held that since the liability under Sec0on 163-A is fastened upon the owner, such a person cannot be both claimant and recipient of com-

pensa0on.

9. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi (2008) 5 SCC 736 and then in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 2 SCC 550, wherein it has been clearly held that the le- gal heirs of a borrower-driver are not en0tled to claim compensa0on under Sec-

0