In FAO-7510-2017 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Liability u/s 163-A of  Motor Vehicles Act is on owner of vehicle: P&H HC confirms MACT’s view
Justice Nidhi Gupta [27-02-2023]

 

 

Read Order: PARDEEP KUMAR VS. KAPOOR SINGH & ANOTHER 

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, March 7, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has confirmed the reasoning of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that liability under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1988 is on the owner of the vehicle, so a claimant cannot be both, a claimant, as well as recipient of the claim.

Present appeal was preferred  by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs 1,00,000 awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed the instant appeal by observing that it failed to find any error in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal. 

Accident in question took place as a stray animal came on the road and deceased lost control and offending vehicle ran into a dig on left side of the road and struck into adjoining electricity pole, as a result of which all the occupants of the car received injuries and when they were taken to PGIMS, Rohtak, Arun who was another occupant of the car, and Amit Sindhu, present deceased and driver of the car, were declared dead. 

It was the case that the appellant deceased was 23 years of age at the time of death and earning Rs 39, 000 per annum and appellant was totally dependent on income of deceased and therefore, deduction of 1/3rd ought to have been made. 

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court reiterated the finding of the Tribunal that in the present case admittedly, the deceased had borrowed the offending vehicle from his father who was the insured. 

In view of the same, the Tribunal by relying on the judment of Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, stated  “compensation is payable to a third party involved in the accident, as in the present case it is not a case of third party, rather, deceased was son of owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, a person cannot be both, a claimant as also recipient with respect to the claim, the Bench held.

The Court reaffirmed, “...liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle, so a claimant cannot be both, a claimant, as well as recipient of the claim”.

Further, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above said case of Ningamma (supra), compensation is payable to a third party. However, in the present case, since borrower of the vehicle was the son of the owner of the vehicle, and the borrower steps into the shoes of the insured therefore, he cannot be stated to be third party, the Bench added.

Hence, in view of such observations, the Court failed to find any error in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal. The appeal was thus accordingly dismissed.