The Patna High Court, while allowing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of the appellants against the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned District Judge cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, held that a person who borrowed the motor vehicle from its real owner, who was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner, would step into the shoes of the owner of that vehicle. Accordingly, the legal representative/ heirs of the deceased who has stepped into the shoes of the owner of a motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.
Brief Facts:
The claimants are the mother, widow, and minor child of the deceased Late Manikant Sharma who died in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants filed the claim petition against the owner and insurer (appellant) of the motorcycle on which the deceased was driving. The appellants/Insurance Company in the objection stated that the claim petition as framed against the appellant is not maintainable because F.I.R. amply proves that an unknown vehicle dashed the Motorcycle head to head and the Police authority charge-sheeted to the driver of the unknown vehicle and the claimants have only right to file this case before the Solatium Fund Chairman. The Learned Tribunal allowed the said petition and held that claimants are entitled to the amount of interim compensation on the basis of no-fault liability. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in the case of the claimants and the material on record, the deceased was driving the bike of the owner (respondent no.4) and was going alone at the time of the accident. The deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner as he took the bike from the owner and literally became the owner, in control of the vehicle, therefore, neither the claim case is maintainable nor the claimants are entitled to compensation from the appellants.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the deceased is a third party to the offending vehicle and the claim petition is maintainable against the driver, owner, and/or insurer of the offending vehicle, however, the same is not traceable. No liability can be imposed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act where the offending vehicle is unidentified. The liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle. So, a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to the claim.
The Court observed that a person who borrowed the motor vehicle from its real owner, who was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner, would step into the shoes of the owner of that vehicle. Accordingly, the legal representative/ heirs of the deceased who has stepped into the shoes of the owner of a motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. The insurer is liable to cover the risk of the third party and not others, who would not otherwise, come within the purview thereof. The deceased cannot be said to the third party with respect to the motorcycle he was driving.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. vs Indu Debi & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case no.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2015
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Not Mentioned
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
