UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SUDHA HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in O.P. (MV)No.1448/2007. The claim before the Tribunal was preferred by the mother and wife of deceased Harikumar T. who was riding the motor cycle belonging to the 3rd respondent and the accident occurred when the deceased applied break and turned to the right side. The claim was preferred under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal should not have entertained the claim since the deceased was neither a third party nor the owner of the vehicle who would be entitled to personal accident cover. The issue raised is longer res integra. The question whether the claim for compensation will lie in a case where the deceased borrows a vehicle from the owner and meets with an accident was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in [2009 KHC 5046] and it was held that the deceased steps into the shoes of the owner and the legal representatives cannot prefer a claim under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vijayarajan & Ors. reported in [2009 (3) KLT 269], a Division Bench of this court held that in a owner-driver policy, no amount is payable to any person other than the owner/driver named in the policy. In Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company & Anr. reported in [2020 KHC 6008 (DB)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a claim will not lie against the Insurer of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle which was driven by the deceased, since the deceased will step into the shoes of the owner.

(2.) In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside.