IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.06 of 2022 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026. National Insurance Company .....Appellant. Versus Shanti Devi & others. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. _______________________________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.S Chandel, Advocate,for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajul Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 30.11.2021, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge(CBI), Shimla, H.P. . 2. The claim petition in the case in hand has been filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act for the grant of compensation. From the perusal of the claim petition, it is evident that the accident took place at Devgarh Himri Kainchi 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2026:HHC:28351 ) on 15.05.2015 at about 9.30 a.m. In the claim petition, it has been averred that the deceased was driving the vehicle and was going to the market at Gumma. When the deceased reached at place Devgarh Himri Kainchi, his car met with an accident and the deceased (Ashok Kumar) lost his life. The vehicle in question was a Maruti car bearing registration No.HP-09C-2985. The claim petition was filed on behalf of the mother of the deceased, wife of the deceased and the son of the deceased being legal heirs. The deceased was stated to be 30 years old. In the claim petition, it has been categorically mentioned that the deceased (Ashok Kumar) was a horticulturist/agriculturist. His monthly income was stated to be Rs.3300/- per month. In the column of the owner of the vehicle in the claim petition, the name of Chiranji Lal, father of the deceased, has been mentioned, who is respondent No. 4 in the appeal pending consideration before this Court (and was respondent No. 1 before the MACT). 3. It has been categorically averred in the preliminary submissions that the deceased could not claim compensation for his own wrongful acts. Section 163-A, it has been categorically averred is not applicable to the claim petition in the case in hand, as there was no employee/employer relationship inter-se the owner of the vehicle and the deceased. Besides the aforesaid, objection qua the deceased 3( 2026:HHC:28351 ) not having any valid driving licence has been raised. Moreover, based on the police investigation, it has been contended in the reply that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the deceased. 4. Based on the pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, H.P. has framed the following issues on 17.09.2019: 1. Whether Ashok Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident, of a car bearing registration No. HP09-C- 2985 , which occurred on 15.05.2019, at around 9.30 a.m. at place Devgarh Himri Kainchi near Hulli, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.?….OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?.....OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?….OPR 4. Whether the car bearing registration No.HP09C- 2985 was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? .OPR2 5. Relief? 5. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in favour of the petitioners and issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 2. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petition was allowed with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization thereof from respondent No.2. 4( 2026:HHC:28351 ) 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and the record. The sole contention of the National Insurance Company before this Court is with respect to maintainability of the claim petition. 7. From the perusal of the impugned award while answering issue No.1 , specific para 13 thereof, MACT has observed based on the testimony of respondent No.1 Chiranji Lal (RW-1) (father of the deceased) before MACT that Ashok Kumar (deceased), was employed by him to drive the offending vehicle and on 15.05.2015 he was driving it with his permission. MACT dealt with issues No. 2 to 4 collectively. While dealing to the aforesaid issues the MACT has observed that insofar as petition under Section 163-A is concerned, Insurance Company cannot plead negligence and in view of aforesaid, the MACT in the impugned judgment with respect to 163-A of the Act, observed that the claimants would be entitled to claim compensation without proving that the accident had occurred due to any fault/negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. In the impugned award, the MACT further observed that by opting for claim under no fault liability, the claimant(s) will be getting compensation as per the prescribed scale laid down in the schedule dated 22.05.2018. The MACT observed that the deceased possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. It was 5( 2026:HHC:28351 ) further observed that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of the incident, i.e., 15.05.2015. Since the compensation was claimed by the mother, wife, and son of the deceased on the principle of no fault liability, the MACT held that the claim petition was maintainable. 8. From the perusal of claim petition it is clearly evident that the deceased was Horticulturist/Agriculturist. His income in the claim petition on account of the aforesaid was stated to be Rs. 3300/- per month. He was not stated in the employment of any individual, much less the owner of the vehicle, i.e respondent No.1 before the MACT (Chiranji Lal) father of the deceased. The claim petition was filed by the mother, wife and son of the deceased. The claim petition under Section 163 A was duly signed by the wife of the deceased. 9. In the response filed, specifically preliminary objection No.3 was taken wherein it had been categorically averred that no proof with respect to employer/employee relationship had been averred in the claim petition. The petition was stated to have been filed by the wife, mother and son of the deceased in collusion with respondent No.1-father of the deceased i.e. owner of the ill-fated vehicle. 10. No replication to the averments made in the reply had been filed before the MACT. 6( 2026:HHC:28351 ) 11. In the affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of respondent No. 1, the owner and father of the deceased, it was stated for the first time that the deceased was employed as a driver and was being paid a salary of ₹2,500/- per month for his services. It has been further averred in the examination-in-chief that respondent No. 1, the owner and father of the deceased, was a government employee who did not know how to drive the vehicle. Therefore, he had engaged the deceased as a driver to pick him up from his residence and drop him at his place of work, and thereafter to bring him back home. 12. In view of the aforesaid, no documentary evidence has been placed on record. A similar statement to this effect has been made by the wife of the deceased in her affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief, wherein she has averred that her husband was employed as a paid driver by the owner of the vehicle, who was also his father. 13. In this regard, it would be appropriate to mention that the present claimants had initially filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the said petition, it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was an agriculturist/horticulturist earning a monthly income of ₹15,000/-. Herein again conspicuous by absence was the factum of deceased having been engaged as a driver by the 7( 2026:HHC:28351 ) owner of the ill-fated vehicle, namely, Chiranji Lal, who was also the father of the deceased. Hence, it can safely be stated that the evidence by way of examination-in-chief of the two witnesses,one produced on behalf of the claimants, namely, the wife and the other on behalf of respondent No. 1 i.e. father of the deceased, specifically qua employment of the deceased is concerned i.e. being engaged in a vehicle, is contrary to the pleadings in the case in hand. The same could not therefore be of any help or assistance to the claim in the case in hand. 14. In view of the material on record the deceased can only be regarded as a permissive user and/or borrower of the motor vehicle owned by Chiranji Lal, the father of the deceased. The finding of the Motor Vehicles Tribunal to the effect that the deceased was an employee of the owner returned in paragraph 13 of the impugned award is perverse and needs to be set aside. Once the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act would not apply. A claim under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no-fault liability and is maintainable only where the deceased or injured is a third party. A borrower of a vehicle which met with an accident, cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act. 8( 2026:HHC:28351 ) 15. In the case in hand, the deceased, being the borrower of the ill-fated vehicle, had stepped into the shoes of the owner. Hence, he could not have maintained a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against either the owner or the insurer of the vehicle. Moreover, the liability of the insurance company is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance entered into between the insurer and the insured whereby the insurance company would be liable qua claims of third party only. The deceased in the case in hand can not be said to be a third party. 16. In judgment dated 03.04.2019 reported as 2021 ACJ 393, titled Deepika Sharma and others vs. Deepak and another, it has been held as under: “8. The Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, states that the borrower of the vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. 9. The Supreme Court in Ningamma's case (supra) dealt with the following issue:- "13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the question that falls for our consideration is whether the legal representatives of a person, who was driving a motor vehicle, after borrowing it from the real owner meets with an accident without involving any other vehicle, would be entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of MVA or under any other provision(s) of law and also whether the insurer who issued the insurance policy would be bound to indemnify the deceased or his legal representatives?" 10. The issue was decided and it was held as under :- "(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 9( 2026:HHC:28351 ) 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." 11 It was held that when the borrower steps into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle, his LR's cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.” 17. Ningamma (supra) has been re-iterated in the Judgment dated 07.01.2020 in 2020 ACJ 627, titled Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. Relevant extract whereof reads as under: “5.3 While answering the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 2, it appears that, as such, the learned 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 Bhagwan Sahay or not. Even otherwise, no evidence is led by the claimants to prove that the deceased-driver was in employment of the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. Despite the above, while answering Issue No. 4 there is some observation made by the learned Tribunal that the deceased- driver was in employment of the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay, 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 Bhagwan Sahay and, therefore, he can be said to be permissible user and/or borrower of motor vehicle owned by the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. With these findings, the main question posed for consideration of this Court referred to hereinabove is required to be considered. 5.4 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra). 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 10( 2026:HHC:28351 ) 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, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra), and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable. 5.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. 11( 2026:HHC:28351 ) There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle.” 18. In view of aforesaid, claim petition preferred under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimants is held not to be maintainable. In view thereof, impugned award dated 30.11.2021 passed by the MACT-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, H.P. is quashed and set aside. 19. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 13th July, 2026 (veena)