KAMALAWWA Vs. RAMAPPA M BYAKUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the appellants is that their claim petition under sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was rejected by the impugned judgment and award dtd. 20/10/2010 in MVC No.2076/2009 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Gokak (for short "the Tribunal").

(2.) The brief bracts are that one Laxman, who is the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 and 3 and son of claimant No.4 had borrowed the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA23/S-2523 from its owner and was riding it on 26/5/2005 at about 8.00 p.m. on Chikodi-Mahalingpur road and near Gandhi Nagar, Hullur he met with an accident and died. The claim petition filed was resisted by the respondents namely, the owner and the insurer. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the learned Tribunal has rejected the petition.

(3.) There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Laxman Malakari Byakud was not the owner of the said motorcycle and he had borrowed it from its RC owner and accident had taken place when he was riding the same on 26/5/2005. The sole question for consideration is when the accident has resulted on account of negligence of the borrower of the vehicle from its owner, can dependants of such deceased maintain a claim petition under sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the owner and the insurer of such a motor vehicle? The said question is no longer res-integra. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another,(2020) 2 SCC 550 has answered the said question in the negative and has held that such claim petition under sec. 163-A of the Act is not maintainable at the instance of dependants of the borrower of the insured vehicle from the owner where the accident has resulted from his own negligence. Moreover, the policy of insurance (Ex.R1) shows that even though premium was paid to cover the personal accident risk of the owner-cum-driver to the maximum extent of Rs.1,00,000.00, since the deceased was only the borrower-rider of the motorcycle, even the said benefit will not avail to his dependants. In that view of the matter, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal impugned herein and this appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.