Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90846 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3103 of 2014 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Vimla Devi And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Krishna Mohan Rai Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant by means of present appeal has assailed the judgment and award dated 16.07.2014 passed by Sri K.K. Sharma, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Etah in M.A.C.P. No.325 of 2011. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in the present case, the deceased was driving the Car bearing Registration No.UP80 BR 9585 and he collided with a tree and since he was driving the Car, therefore, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and the claim petition was not maintainable. It is further contended that since the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner and coverage under the insurance policy is up to Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakhs), therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay only Rs. 2,00,000/- and not beyond that. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that admittedly the deceased was riding in the car and the claim petition has been instituted under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore, the claimants were entitled for compensation only. 5. Be that as it may, though it has been argued that deceased had entered into the shoes of the owner as he was driving the car but the said argument is not supported by any provision of law. Further, the contract of insurance was between owner of offending vehicle and the insurance company and the deceased was third party to the contract of insurance. There is no clause in the insurance policy which stipulates that any person who drive the offending vehicle would step into the shoes of the owner. In such view of the fact, the contention advanced above, is misconceived and is rejected. 6. Since there is no provision under which it can be held that anybody who drives a vehicle enters into the shoes of the owner, therefore, the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company is liable to pay up to Rs.2,00,000/- is also misconceived. 7. Thus, for the reasons given above, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad