VIJAY KUMAR Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 11.07.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was dismissed on the ground that the deceased Harish Chand being borrower of the motorcycle No.DL-4SC-AL-1329 was not entitled to claim compensation from the owner or the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal while reaching on this conclusion placed reliance on the Supreme Court report in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 736, Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710 and a judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Angrej Singh FAO No.1200/2008 decided on 20.05.2010.

(2.) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that under Section 163-A of the Act, the Appellants are entitled to compensation without proving negligence of any person. Thus, it is argued that the Appellants were entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that deceased Harish Chand was borrower of the vehicle. The question whether the borrower of a vehicle can claim compensation from the owner/insurer of the vehicle was considered by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 417; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 736; and Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710. The Supreme Court held that borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and, therefore, he/his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation from the owner/insurer of the vehicle under Section 163-A of the Act. In Ningamma, the Supreme Court held as follows:-