The Gauhati High Court recently set aside a Judgment of the motor claim tribunal which awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,54,000/- to the legal heirs of a deceased person who was driving a borrowed motorcycle on the ground that a borrower of a vehicle, if gets injured or died in an accident while using a vehicle owned by somebody else his legal heirs, cannot claim compensation under 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter MV Act).
Brief Facts
A 22-year-old named Uzzal Das was driving a motorcycle when he met with an accident resulting in his death. The motorcycle was owned by Gautam Roy Choudhury and a claim application under section 163-A of the MV Act was filed before the tribunal seeking compensation for Uzzal Das’s death. The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that the deceased was not a third party because he was effectively the owner of the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The tribunal rejected the insurance company’s plea and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,54,000/- along with an interest rate of 6% per annum for the date of filing the claim petition.
Contentions of Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner contested that the deceased was not a third party and he had already stepped into the shoes of the real owner. The counsel refers to the Supreme Court judgment in ‘Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710’ where it is observed that the insurance company’s liability is unlimited when a third party is involved. For claims regarding the death of the vehicle’s owner or another passenger, the insurance contract governs the claim and it depends on the contract terms. And if the victim dies or is permanently disabled in a motor vehicle accident the insurance company or the owner must pay compensation under section 163-A. If the driver is the owner, they cannot claim compensation as they are liable to pay. Thus, the legal representatives of the deceased owner cannot claim compensation under section 163-A.
Contentions of Respondent
The counsel for the respondent in his submission relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘Fahim Ahmad v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 148’, where it is observed that the insurance company’ claim of breach of policy conditions was neither proven nor supported with evidence before the Tribunal. Without such evidence the breach cannot be presumed and the liability for compensation cannot be imposed on the appellants.
Observation of Court
It is observed by the Court that the liability to pay compensation under section 163-A of the act of 1988 is on the principle of no fault. It is also observed that the owner of the motor vehicle is liable to pay compensation if he causes injury or death to another person and that’s why the owner of the vehicle purchased an insurance policy. It is also held that whenever a person other than a paid driver uses a vehicle owned by somebody else, the user becomes the first party and not the third party and if the first party gets injured or dies in an accident while using a vehicle owned by somebody else his legal heirs cannot claim compensation under section 163-A of MV Act.
Decision of Court
The Court decides that the vehicle used by someone other than paid driver the user of the vehicle owned by somebody else becomes the first party and in case of accident or injury, his legal heirs cannot claim compensation. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and the court allowed the appeal.
Advocate for Petitioner Adv. D.K Das, R. Goswami, A. Alam
Advocate for Respondent Adv. D. Mondal, P. Sarma
Coram Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia
Read Judgment: