Sikkim High Court
The Divisional Manager, National ... vs Jigmee Lepcha And Ors on 29 October, 2025
Author: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Having its Office at National Highway-10,
Opposite Tourism Department,
P.O. & P.S. Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.
..... Appellant/Insurer
Versus
1. Mr. Jigmee Lepcha,
Aged about 22 years,
Son of late Netuk Lepcha,
P.O. Dzongu & P.S. Mangan,
Sikkim-737116.
2. Mr. Sonam Rinzing Lepcha,
Aged about 54 years,
Son of late Kabo Lepcha,
P.O. Dzongu & P.S. Mangan,
Sikkim-737116.
..... Respondents/Claimant Nos. 1 & 2.
Both residents of Sangdong, Hee Gyathang GPU, Lower
Dzongu, P.O. Dzongu, P.S. Mangan Sikkim.
3. Mr. Lukbo Thing Lepcha,
Son of Mr. Phurba Tshering Lepcha,
Resident of Ray Mindu, Ranka,
Sikkim-737102.
.....Respondent No.3/owner of the motorcycle.
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
(Impugned judgment and award dated 11.09.2024 passed by the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikkim at
Mangan in MACT Case No.01 of 2024 directing the
appellant/insurer to pay Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 10% per
2
MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepcha & Ors.
annum on the said sum, to the claimants from the date of filing of
the claim petition i.e. 02.12.2023 until full and final payment.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Madan Kumar Sundas, Advocate for the
Appellant/Insurer.
Ms. Vidya Lama and Mr. Nima Tshering Sherpa,
Advocates for the Respondent nos.1 & 2/Claimant
Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Sishir Mothay, Advocate for Respondent
no.3/owner of the motorcycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 14.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.10.2025
JUDGMENT
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the award of
compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- granted to the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 (claimant nos. 1 and 2) under
personal accident cover with interest at 10% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till full and final
payment.
2. On 23.11.2023 the deceased met with an accident
while riding a motorcycle borrowed from his friend-the
respondent no.3 Lukbo Thing Lepcha (the owner of the
motorcycle) and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on
30.11.2023. The deceased-late Karma Topden Lepcha was
24 years when he died. The deceased was the elder brother
of claimant no.1 and nephew of claimant no.2.
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepcha & Ors.
3. The motorcycle was duly insured by the respondent
no.3 vide insurance policy (exhibit-C/9). The learned
Tribunal has concluded that the motorcycle had a valid
registration certificate as well as insurance policy and the
appellant has admitted that the insurance policy was
issued by the appellant and it covered the date of the
accident. The appellant also admitted that premium of
Rs.295/- was paid for personal accident to owner-driver
and under the limits of liability clause, personal accident
cover for owner-driver is Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The learned Tribunal has also held that the
respondent no.3 had admitted that he had given the
motorcycle to the deceased who was his friend and
authorised him vide authorisation letter (exhibit-C/12)
which was valid till 14.03.2024 and covered the accident
date.
5. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased was thus
a borrower who stepped into the shoes of the vehicle owner
i.e. respondent no.3 relying upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India
Insurance Company Limited1.
1 (2009) 13 SCC 710
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepcha & Ors.
6. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the
claimants were not entitled to the claim as made by them
under section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.
Rajni Devi & Ors2 had laid down that vehicle owner cannot
be the claimant as well as recipient of the claim and the
liability under section 163A is on the owner of the vehicle.
7. However, the learned Tribunal opined that the
claimants were still entitled to relief as the insurance policy
provided for a personal accident cover for owner-driver to
the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- drawing strength from the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi & Anr. vs.
United India Insurance Company & Anr.3.
8. The learned Tribunal also noticed that the insurance
policy (exhibit-C/9) covered the deceased and he was
permitted to drive the motorcycle.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
as the personal accident cover was for owner-driver it was
not transferrable and the claimants could not have sought
compensation for the death of the deceased who was not
the owner-driver. He also argued that as the learned
Tribunal held that the claim petition filed under section
2 (2008) 5 SCC 736
3 (2020) 2 SCC 550
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepcha & Ors.
164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable,
compensation could not have been granted.
10. The Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) relying upon
its earlier view in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra)
opined that as the borrower was authorised to drive the
accident vehicle by its owner he would step into the shoes
of the owner of the motorcycle. Thus, the deceased who had
borrowed the motorcycle from the owner through a valid
authorisation letter had stepped into the shoes of the
owner when he met with an accident.
11. In Ramkhiladi (supra), in almost similar fact situation,
the Supreme Court opined that the claim made by the
claimaints therein under section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. The Supreme
Court however also opined that under the contract of
insurance the claimants were entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as
per the terms of the contract of insurance as the driver
had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.
Similarly, the learned Tribunal has correctly opined that
the claim petition under section 164 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 filed by the claimants was not maintainable but
under the insurance policy the claimants were entitled to
Rs.15,00,000/- under the personal accident cover for the
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepcha & Ors.
owner-driver as the deceased had stepped into the shoes of
the owner i.e. respondent no.3.
12. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any
merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed
along with the interim application.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Approved for reporting : Yes
Internet : Yes
to/
