Delhi District Court
Avtar Singh & Anr. vs . Rajinder Singh & Anr. on 22 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL PRESIDING
OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACP No. 54/13
AVTAR SINGH & ANR. VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ANR.
1. Sh. Avtar Singh
S/o Sh. Buta Singh,
R/o G-47, Gali No. 4,
Sant Nagar Extension, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Manjeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Avtar Singh,
R/o G-47, Gali No. 4,
Sant Nagar Extension, New Delhi.
Parents/LRs of the deceased Satnam Singh.
......Petitioners/Claimants.
Versus
1. Sh. Rajinder Singh (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Baina Singh
R/o H.No. 5A/40, First Floor,
Khayala, Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
R.O. 8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,
18, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi. .....Respondents
MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 1 of 19 MACP No. 399/13 RANJEET SINGH @ Sunny VS. RAJENDER SINGH & ANR.
Sh. Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny (Since deceased) Through his LRs.
1. Sh. Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Buta Singh, R/o G-47, Gali No. 4, Sant Nagar Extension, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Manjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Avtar Singh, R/o G-47, Gali No. 4, Sant Nagar Extension, New Delhi.
......Petitioners/Claimants.
Versus
1. Sh. Rajinder Singh (Driver-cum-owner) S/o Sh. Baina Singh R/o H.No. 5A/40, First Floor, Khayala Near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer) R.O. 8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, 18, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. .....Respondents Date of filing of DAR : 23.07.2012 Date of filing of MACP No. 54/13: 08.03.2013 Date of filing of MACP No. 399/13 : 04.10.2013 Date of concluding arguments : 20.12.2018 Date of decision : 22.12.2018 MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 2 of 19 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. These two connected claim petitions are in respect of death of one Satnam Singh and injuries suffered by his brother Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny (since also deceased), in an accident that took place on 27.05.2012, at about 03.20 am, at Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Opposite Shivaji Stadium Metro Station, New Delhi. The offending vehicle implicated in this case is a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-4SBT-9269, which at the relevant time of accident, stood registered in the name of R-1 and was insured with R-2. The said motorcycle was being driven at the time of accident by the deceased Satnam Singh himself. The petition No. 399/13 was filed when the injured Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny was alive and he expired only thereafter in some other accident and the petitioners herein were brought on record as his LRs being parents.
2. The factual background of these cases is that on 27.05.2012 one DD No. 42A was recorded at PS Cannaught Place regarding the above accident and the said DD was assigned to IO/SI Saurabh Kumar and he reached at the spot of accident, along with a constable, and had found the offending motorcycle lying there in an accidental condition. He came to know on inquiry at the spot that two boys while performing stunts on the above MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 3 of 19 motorcycle had suffered injuries and they had already been taken to Dr. RML Hospital.
3. The IO reached the above hospital and obtained MLCs of both the injured boys, who had suffered multiple injuries in the said accident. However, no eye witness of the accident was found in the hospital. Thereafter, IO returned back to the spot of accident and found one HC Shari Chand, Incharge of a PCR van, present there and he claimed himself to be an eye witness of the above accident. He stated to the IO that he was deputed on PCR duty as Incharge of the above van from 8pm to 8am on that day for the New Delhi Zone. It being Sunday, there was some rush in Gurudwara Bangla Sahib and they had been receiving informations about the performance of stunts by the bikers on such occasions and to check the same, they had parked their gypsy near the T-point, Bangla Sahib Lane, on road leading towards Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, along with some other police vehicles. It was also stated by him that at around 03.20 am, they had seen two boys performing stunts on a motorcycle and coming towards them from the Hanuman Mandir Road. As soon as these boys reached infront of Shivaji Metro Station, their motorcycle got disbalanced and they both, along with their motorcycle, fell on the road and were dragged till the T-point with motorcycle and had hit against MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 4 of 19 the Iceland pavement of above T-point and then their bike had also gone to hit against the above police gypsy standing there. He further stated in his above statement that they had then removed both the injured boys to the hospital for treatment and the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the boy who was driving the above bike as they were performing stunts at the time of accident.
4. IO had endorsed a rukka on the above statement of HC Shari Chand and one FIR bearing No. 90/12 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Cannaught Place regarding the above accident. Though, the injured Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny survived in the above accident, but his brother Satnam Singh expired on the date of accident itself and hence, Section 304-A IPC was added to the case and a final report/abated challan in the case was filed subsequently in the Court of Ld. MM concerned.
5. One DAR in respect of the above accident was also filed before this tribunal on 23.07.2012 and on being issued notice of the DAR, appearance was also filed in the DAR proceedings on behalf of both the respondents herein, i.e. the registered owner as well as insurer of the offending motorcycle. However, no formal reply to the DAR was filed on behalf of them till 08.03.2013, when MACP No. 54/13 was filed by parents of the deceased MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 5 of 19 Satnam Singh, i.e. petitioners in the said petition, claiming compensation for accidental death of their above son. The other petition by the injured Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny was filed subsequently on 04.10.2013 and on the same day, the DAR already filed qua him was directed to be clubbed with the file of above MACP No. 399/13 pertaining to him for further proceedings.
6. However, prior to that, one written statement on behalf of R-2/Insurance Company stood already filed in the connected MACP No. 54/13 and in the said written statement, they had admitted the existence of a valid package insurance policy of the offending vehicle on the date of accident, but claimed that their liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the said policy. They have also objected to the maintainability of the above claim petitions on the ground that the deceased was driving a stolen motorcycle and further driving it without a valid driving license and he was not entrusted the possession of the vehicle by its registered owner.
7. However, though R-1 was earlier appearing in the DAR proceedings and had also filed an application under Section 151 CPC for framing of an issue on maintainability of the DAR, but he subsequently stopped appearing in these proceedings and his presence could not be secured even after filing of the claim petitions as MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 6 of 19 the petitioners failed to take steps for his service. Even the petitioners started defaulting in appearance in these matters and to pursue their claims set up in these claim petitions and ultimately both these petitions were dismissed in default vide the order dated 11.12.2015 of this tribunal.
8. Subsequently, two separate applications under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC were filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of these two petitions and one other application in MACP No. 399/13 was also filed by the parents of the injured Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny seeking their impleadment as LRs of the petitioner as he was stated to have expired in some other accident in between. These applications were allowed by this tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2018 and the parents of the deceased claimant Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny, who were already petitioners in MACP No. 54/13, were permitted to pursue the claim for compensation in respect of the injuries caused to their deceased son Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny also.
9. It is necessary to mention here that though after these petitions were restored back to their original numbers and positions, the efforts were again made to secure the presence of R-1, but the same could not be secured and he was ultimately proceeded ex-parte vide MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 7 of 19 order dated 04.08.2018 of this tribunal after notice to him was served by way of publication in the hindi daily newspaper "Veer Arjun" dated 07.06.2018. Since while considering the above restoration applications of the petitioners and while going through the case file, this tribunal had entertained some doubts regarding maintainability of these petitions, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners was asked to satisfy this tribunal about maintainability of the same.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. B.S. Randhawa, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Sh. Ramesh Sethi, Ld. Counsel for R-2/Insurance Company. Since R-1 was already proceeded ex-parte, none has turned up on his behalf even to address any arguments. I have also carefully perused the entire records of the case.
11. As stated above, as per the version of the incident/accident recorded in the FIR of the criminal case registered about the same, both the above deceased brothers were riding on the same motorcycle, which was being driven by the deceased Satnam Singh and they were performing stunts. This version of accident was recorded on the basis of statement made by an eye witness of the above accident, who was deputed as Incharge of the PCR van, which was parked near the spot of accident and against which the motorcycle of the MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 8 of 19 deceased had also gone to hit after it fell down on the road and was got dragged, along with the injured/deceased riders. This manner of accident had also sustained throughout the investigation of this case as it is an admitted fact that a final report/challan as abated was prepared in this case and was filed in the Court of Ld. MM concerned.
12. Though, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the above police gypsy suddenly came infront of the motorcycle of the deceased persons and it had hit against their motorcycle, but this version of the accident is against the FIR as well as final report prepared in the above criminal case, which show that the police gypsy was also parked near the place of accident and it was not in motion. The submission being made by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the police gypsy had hit the motorcycle of the deceased is even not found recorded or stated in the claim petitions as the petitions only state that the gypsy suddenly came ahead of the offending motorcycle, due to which the offending motorcycle got disbalanced and had gone to hit against the above T-point. Except the above police officials, no other person is claimed to have witnessed the said accident as the name of any such person is not found cited in the claim petitions as an eye witness nor it has been claimed so till date despite MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 9 of 19 the fact that a period of more than 6 years has already been passed. As already stated above, the accident took place at 3.20 am and even no public person could be expected to have been present at the above time of accident. Hence, in the absence of their being on record any reasonable or satisfactory evidence in this regard, any different version of the above accident, except as set up in the DAR, is not possible for this tribunal to accept.
13. Further, the record of the criminal case suggests that the above accident took place when the deceased was performing stunts and hence, the deceased Satnam Singh can himself be blamed for causing the above accident due to his own rash and negligent act of driving resulting into the said accident and he cannot get benefit of his own wrongs. The other injured Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny (since deceased) being his real brother and a party to the above acts of his brother Satnam Singh also stands in the same position.
14. Again, though the offending motorcycle was admittedly insured with R-2, but Ld. Counsel for the petitioners have failed to show as to in what capacity the deceased Satnam Singh was driving the said motorcycle and the injured Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny was riding on pillon on it. It has already been stated above that the above motorcycle was found to be a stolen one and it is also a MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 10 of 19 matter of record that one FIR No. 212/12 under Sections 379/411 IPC at PS Khayala was got lodged by its registered owner, i.e. R-1, about theft of this vehicle on the day of accident itself, though it was registered subsequent to the above accident, and the injured/deceased Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny was even subsequently arrested in the above said case as an accused and he is also found to have been produced before this tribunal on few occasions on production warrants from custody of the said case. Hence, none of the above two deceased can be termed to a lawful occupant or rider of the above motorcycle on the day of accident and they themselves being the wrongdoers cannot be awarded any compensation in the present case. The deceased Satnam Singh, while driving the above motorcycle cannot thus be called an agent or employee of registered owner of the said vehicle or even a lawful occupant or possessor thereof and so is the case of his brother Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny. Infact, the deceased Satnam Singh is the principal tortfeasor in the present case.
15. Further, they cannot also be termed as third party for the purposes of insurance policy of the said vehicle issued by R-2/Insurance Company as the policy was issued in respect of the same vehicle on which they were riding without any lawful authority or permission of the owner MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 11 of 19 thereof. The deceased Satnam Singh was even not possessing any driving license to drive the said motorcycle as no license in his name has been filed on record till date despite raising of a specific objection in this regard.
16. Though, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the above motorcycle was actually borrowed by the deceased persons from their friend and hence, they both are to be treated as lawful occupants of the above motorcycle, but this submission of Ld. Counsel is without any force because had it been so, the owner of above motorcycle should not have got recorded a case of theft of the said motorcycle and he should also have come forward to support the claim of the petitioners. Moreover, even if they are treated as borrowers of the above motorcycle from its owner for the sake of arguments, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 2020 (decided on 13.05.2009), R2/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation qua them as they stepped into the shoes of the owner of the said vehicle or insured and cannot claim any compensation from their own Insurance Company. Moreover, this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with reference to a claim under Section 163A of the MV Act dealing with no fault liability and the grant of compensation MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 12 of 19 on a structured formula, whereas these petitions are under Section 166 of the said Act where some reasonable proof of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle is required, which means that such driver of the offending vehicle should be some other person different than the deceased or injured himself.
17. In the case of Ningamma (supra), the issue directly raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of maintainability of the claim raised in respect of death of borrower of a vehicle from the owner thereof. In the said case, the deceased Ramappa had borrowed a motorcycle from its owner and had died in an accident involving use of the said motorcycle. Though the concerned Claims Tribunal had granted a compensation of Rs.2,59,800/-, alongwith interest, to the legal heirs of deceased in a petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, but the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had set-aside the above judgment/award of the Claims Tribunal, while holding, inter- alia, that the petition was not maintainable as there was no tort-feasor involved in the matter. In a challenge made to the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court by the claimants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the entire law on the subject in light of the provisions contained in the above Section, including the judgments in the cases of Deepak Girishbhai Soni Vs. United Insurance Co.
MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 13 of 19 Ltd. (Supra), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. (Supra), Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. (Supra) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 736 etc., had upheld the above order of the Hon'ble High Court and had held the above claim to be not maintainable as their Lordships were of the view that owner of the vehicle or insured or any person claiming through him cannot be said to be a 'third party' qua the Insurance Co. concerned. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case are being reproduced herein below:-
"14. Section 163-A of the MVA was inserted by Act 54 of 1994 by way of a social security scheme. It is needless to say that the said provision is a code by itself. The said provision has been inserted to provide for a new predetermined structured formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income of the deceased or the person suffering permanent disablement. In view of the language used in said section there could be no manner of doubt that the said provision has an overriding effect as it contains a non obstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is liable to pay compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
15. A number of decisions have been rendered by this Court in respect of the Section 163A of the MVA. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,(2004) 5 SCC 385, at page 402, one of us (Hon'ble Justice S. B. Sinha) has observed as follows:
"42. Section 163-A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs 40,000 having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 14 of 19 Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto, compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in columns 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle."
This Court further observed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428, at page 428:
"18. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani this Court had occasion to consider the scope of the expression "any person" occurring in Section 147 of the Act. This Court held: (SCC p. 235, para 26) "... that the meaning of the words `any person' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. `a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor." In other words, this Court clearly held that the apparently wide words "any person" are qualified by the setting in which they occur and that "any person" is to be understood as a third party.
27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v.
MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 15 of 19 Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan was accepted by the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by introducing Section 163-A of the Act providing for payment of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle.
28. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., two of the learned Judges who constituted the Bench in Minu B. Mehta held that when a car is driven by the owner's employee on owner's business, the normal rule was that it was for the claimant for compensation to prove negligence. When the Manager of the owner while driving the car on the business of the owner took in a passenger, it would be taken that he had the authority to do so, considering his position unless otherwise shown. If due to his negligent driving an accident occurred and the passenger died, the owner would be liable for compensation. The Court noticed that the modern trend was to make the master liable for acts of his MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 16 of 19 servant which may not fall within the expression "in the course of his employment" as formerly understood. With respect, we think that the extensions to the principle of liability have been rightly indicated in this decision".
16. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that the Parliament by introducing Section 163-A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub- section (1) of Section 163-A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned.
17. However, in the facts of the present case, 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 163-A 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.
18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, 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 contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163- A 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 163-A 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 MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 17 of 19 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, 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.
19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA.
20. When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.............." (Emphasis supplied)
18. Thus, keeping in view the above submissions and the other attending facts and circumstances, it is held that the present claim petitions filed qua death of the deceased Satnam Singh and the injuries suffered by his brother Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny (since also deceased) are not maintainable against the respondents and hence, the same MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13 Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 18 of 19 are being dismissed as such through this common judgment. Copy of the judgment be placed in both the files and a copy be also given to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by MANOJ MANOJ KUMAR
NAGPAL
KUMAR Date:
NAGPAL 2018.12.24
14:37:11
+0530
Announced in the open court. (M.K.Nagpal)
on 22.12.2018 PO/MACT, New Delhi
MACP No. 54/13 & MACP No. 399/13
Avtar Singh and Ranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. Page no. 19 of 19