Judgment related to Stepped into the shoe of the owner under MV Act

 

Judgment related to Stepped into the shoe of the owner under MV Act

 

1.New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417, wherein, the son of the owner was driving the vehicle, who died in the accident, was not regarded as third party. In the said case the court held that neither Section 163A nor Section 166 would be applicable.

2. The deceased was traveling on Motor Cycle, which he borrowed from its real owner for going from Ilkal to his native place Gudur. When the said motor cycle was proceeding on IlkalKustagl, National Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle carrying iron sheet, which suddenly stopped and consequently deceased who was proceeding on the said motor cycle dashed bullock cart. Consequent to the aforesaid incident, he sustained fatal injuries over his vital part of body and on the way to Govt. Hospital, Ilkal, he died. It was forcefully argued by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the claimants are not the `third party', and therefore, they are not

entitled to claim any benefit under Section 163A of the MVA. In support of the said contention, the counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, (2008) 5 SCC 736; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.

Sadanand Mukhi and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417.

In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the

insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua IP, the

claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that

the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163A of the MVA. Apex

Court held “ the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.

In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the

shoes of the owner of the motorbike.”

2009 (13) SCC 710 – Ningmma v/s United India 3U/s 163Adeceased stepped into the shoes of the owner. IC held not liable2012 ACJ 391, 2019 ACJ 3146 (Kar), 2020 ACJ 61 (Kar)

4. u/ s 163Aaccident  between scooter and car scooter belonged to the brother of claimant whether claimant is entitled for compensation u/s 163A?Held ; No. As claimant has stepped into the shoe of owner. IC cannot be held liable. Sc judgments followed. 2012 ACJ 1329 (P&H)

5.Whether a claim petition preferred u/s 163A of the Act is maintainable when person ridding a motor cycle borrowed it from its owner. Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 1472 SC

Judgments in the cases of Sadanand Mukhi, Ningamma and Rajni Devi followed. 2016 ACJ 1072 (Del), 2018 ACJ 51 (Chh)

– Ningamma followed

6. Borrower of the vehicle met with an accident as scooter slipped no other vehicle involved Whether in such situation, IC is liable to pay amount of compensation? Held ; No.

2014 ACJ 604 (P&H).

7. Borrower of the vehicle met with an accident as scooter slipped no other vehicle involved said vehicle is owned by the mother of the scooterist claim petition u/s 163Aowner had taken personal

accident cover of Rs.1,00,000/Whether under this situation, IC is held liable to pay amount of compassion? Held; yes, but only upto Rs.1,00,000/2014

ACJ 604 (P&H) HNB.,

2017 ACJ 1506 (Sik),

2017 ACJ 2256 (Sik), 2018 ACJ 2017 (Gau), 2018 ACJ

2060 (Gau), 2022 ACJ 1120 (Mad)

But see 2017 (1) GLH 27 – ICICI Lombard vs.

Ashaben Pratap Vadher (Jst R P Dholaria), 2017 (1)

GLH, 2018 ACJ 327 (Guj) UII

Com. vs. Manishaben D.

Parmar (Jst R P Dholaria), IFFCO Tokio General

Insurance Com vs. Deepakbhai Bhikhabahi Patel, 2017

(2) GLR 1100 = 2017 ACJ 1793, ICICI Lombard vs.

Amrutben @ Amratben Dhameliy, 2017 (1) GLH 733 and

2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 1800 (Guj) (R P

Dholaria), 2018 ACJ 1488 (Guj). Also see 2018 ACJ

1110 (P&H)

Contrary view taken by Rajasthan High Court in

the case – 2017 ACJ 2797 (Raj)

In 2017 ACJ 1897 it has been held that claimant is entitled for interim compensation u/s 140 only. It is the contention of the IC that risk of Rs.2,00,000/is covered under personal accident policy and therefore, IC is not liable to pay any amount beyond 2,00,000/. Whether sustainable? Held No. As same was taken as defence in the WS. 2021 ACJ 26 (Meg)

7. A Claim raised in application controverted by Insurance

Company on ground that owner was not covered by policy. Tribunal only deciding question about maintainability of application and held that claim petition is maintainable. High Court in revision set aside order of the Tribunal. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that before the Claims Tribunal, summary procedure applies and, therefore, Tribunal cannot decide issues arising in claim petition in piecemeal.

Bimlesh v/s N.I.Com, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2591

8. Claim petition u/s 163A of MV Act by L.R. Of deceased who stepped into the shoe of the owner are entitled for compensation? Held ; No.

At the most they are entitled for Rs.50,000/under Section 140.

2014 ACJ 2561 (P&H), three SC Judgments followed. Eshwarappa, 2010 ACJ 2444 (SC),

Ningamma, 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC) and Rajni Devi,

2008 ACJ 1441 (SC). 2016 ACJ 250 (P&H)

9. Personal Accident Cover (P.A.C)deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner – whether such person is entitled to claim any amount under the head of “Personal Accident Cover”(PAC)?Held in view of IMT 2002, GR 36 only the registered owner is entitled

to get this benefit and not the person who has stepped into the show of the owner. No Such benefit can only be availed by the owner himself and not any other person who stepped into his shoes. Further held that when accident occurred only because

of the sole negligence of the deceased, LR of deceased are not entitled for any compensation u/s 163A but under Section 140 of the Act.

2014 ACJ 2803(P&H), 2015 ACJ 2642 (P&H), 2021

ACJ 393 (Har), 2021 ACJ 2706 (Mad), 2022 ACJ 246

(Mad)

10. Claim against Municipal Corporation accident caused as no warning placed around the ditch – held claim of pillion rider is maintainable before the MAC Tribunal but claim of the driver of the bike is not maintainable as he stepped into the shoe of the owner and Civil Suit is maintainabile.

2017 (3) GLH 26 – Commissioner v/s Sureshbhai

Shamjibhai Sojitra.

11. OwnerDriver succumbed to injuries sustained by him while he was plying the car which dashed with the parked truck – Tribunal apportioned 40% contributory negligence to the deceased and directed both the ICs to pay compensation – whether sustainable? Held – No – However, IC of the car is liable to pay under the personal accident cover. LRs of deceased entitled to

recover 60% from the IC of the truck.

2018 ACJ 1929 (Gua)