1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.513 of 2015 ------ Chando Devi wife of Dilip Das, resident of Village Dhaiya, Ward No.10, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad .... .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Ashish Ravidas son of Sukar Ravidas, resident of Village Amarpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad 2. The Manager (Legal), M/s IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., IFCO Sadan, C-1, District Central Saket, New Delhi .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate ------ Order No.12 / Dated : 06.03.2025 Claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No.78/2013. 2. As per the case of the claimant, her son, deceased- Gautam Kumar Ravidas was going to Chirkunda by one Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration no.JH 01AF 0142 which met with an accident with an unknown vehicle, as a result he sustained fatal injury and died. 3. The claim application was preferred impleading the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the owner of the vehicle was defendant no.1- the maternal uncle of the deceased and his motorcycle had been borrowed by the deceased therefore, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and will not come within the meaning of third party. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not held liable to pay compensation and the liability was fixed against owner of the motorcycle. 4. The owner has not preferred any appeal. 5. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that deceased was pillion rider of the said motorcycle and therefore, he will come within the meaning of third party. Even if it is assumed that he was driving the motor cycle, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation, as the policy covered the owner in the accident. Therefore, the deceased was 2 squarely covered within the policy to the extent of Rupees One Lakh. 6. Learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company does not dispute the factual assertions made. It is however argued that in the claim application, name of the driver has not been mentioned anywhere that if he was the pillion rider, then the question who was the driver? It was against the background that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that he was himself driving the vehicle, which has remained unchallenged. 7. It is also argued that since FIR and charge sheet has been submitted against unknown vehicle therefore, it should come within the meaning of hit and run case and not under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The plea that he was driving the vehicle as an owner, is not substantiated on evidence and the driving license has not been produced to show that there was no breach of term of policy for driving the vehicle without proper driving license. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced, it is baffling that claimant is taking shifting and contradictory stand with regard to the factum of accident. In the claim application, it is not stated that the deceased was riding as a pillion rider on the motor vehicle, therefore, it is too late in the day to contend that he was a third party and not the driver. 9. Learned Tribunal has recorded a finding on evidence that motorcycle was that of the maternal uncle of the deceased and was being driven at the time of accident by the deceased. Owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal against the award fixing liability on him. It is the claimant who has preferred the appeal for shifting the liability on the Insurance Company. This Court is of the view that it is only the owner who can raise such plea and not the claimant who was not a party to the insurance contract, as such plea will be hit by the principles of privity of contract. 10. Claim against the Insurance Company cannot be maintained under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, if the accident took place while the owner/borrower/permissive user was driving the vehicle. It has been held in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co., (2020) 2 SCC 550 : “The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in a case where the driver, owner and the insurance company of another vehicle involved 3 in an accident and whose driver was negligent are not joined as parties to the claim petition, meaning thereby that no claim petition is filed against them and the claim petition is filed only against the owner and the insurance company of another vehicle which was driven by the deceased himself and the deceased being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle driven by himself, whether the insurance company of the vehicle driven by the deceased himself would be liable to pay the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act? Whether the deceased not being a third party to Vehicle No. RJ 02 SA 7811 being in the shoes of the owner can maintain the claim under Section 163-A of the Act from the owner of the said vehicle? 9.4. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Ningamma [Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] . 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 163-A 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 163-A 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 163-A of the Act”. In view of the above settled position of law, the instant appeal is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit