RAMKHILADI & ANR. versus THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 07-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
RAMKHILADI & ANR.
v.
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9393 of 2019)
JANUARY 07, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 163A – Claim under – Victim
was travelling on a motorcycle and met an accident – Victim died –
As per claimants, the accident occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the driver of another motorcycle – Claim Petition
u/s. 163A of the Act filed by the appellants against the owner of the
vehicle on which victim/deceased was travelling and its insurance
company – Neither the driver nor the owner or the insurance
company of another motorcycle were joined as opponents in the
claim petition – Tribunal held insurance company liable to pay
compensation of Rs. 3,67,000/- u/s. 163A of the Act – The High
Court set aside the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
and dismissed the claim petition – On appeal, held: There was no
specific finding whether the deceased-driver was in employment of
the opponent-owner or not – Even otherwise, no evidence was led
by the claimants to prove that the deceased-driver was in employment
of the opponent-owner – Under the circumstances, the deceased-
driver cannot be said to be in employment of the opponent-owner
and therefore, can be said to be permissible user and/or borrower
of the motor vehicle – Applying the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
and as the deceased-driver had stepped into the shoes of the owner
of the vehicle, as rightly held by the High Court the claim petition
u/s. 163A  of the Act against the owner and insurance company of
the vehicle, borrowed by the deceased, shall not be maintainable –
Further, liability of the insurance company would be as per the
terms and conditions of the contract of insurance – And as per the
contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver
is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh – Therefore, the deceased, who
would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.
1 lakh, as per the contract of insurance.
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 19
19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. While answering the finding recorded by the
Tribunal on Issue No. 2  i.e. whether the driver was driving the
said vehicle being in the employment of vehicle owner opposite
party No. 1 in his interest or with his permission/knowledge? it
appears that, as such, the Tribunal has not at all answered the
aforesaid issue.  While answering Issue No. 2, there is no specific
finding whether the deceased-driver was in employment of the
opponent-owner or not. Even otherwise, no evidence is led by
the claimants to prove that the deceased-driver was in
employment of the opponent-owner.  Despite the above, while
answering Issue No. 4 there is some observation made by the
Tribunal that the deceased-driver was in employment of the
opponent-owner,  which is not supported by any evidence on
record.  Under the circumstances, the deceased-driver cannot
be said to be in employment of the opponent-owner and,
therefore, he can be said to be permissible user and/or borrower
of motor vehicle owned by the opponent-owner.  With these
findings, the main question posed for consideration of this Court
referred to hereinabove is required to be considered. [Paras 2.1
and 5.3] [32-B-D]
2. An identical question came to be considered by this Court
in the case of Ningamma,  In that case, the deceased was driving
a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met
with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without
involving any other vehicle.  The claim petition was filed under
Section 163A of the Act by the legal representatives of the
deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was
being driven by the deceased.  To that, this Court has observed
and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of
the owner of the vehicle, Section 163A of the Act cannot apply
wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved.
Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the
deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section
163A of the Act.  Therefore, as such, in the present case, the
claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed
the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act against the driver,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. another
motorcyc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.