Summary
The heirs of a deceased borrower riding a motorcycle could not maintain a Section 163A claim against that motorcycle’s owner and insurer, because he stood in the owner’s shoes rather than as a third party. They nevertheless received Rs.1 lakh under the policy’s personal accident cover, with interest. The later amendment to the Second Schedule did not enhance recovery on these facts.
Issues
- Whether the borrower’s heirs could recover under Section 163A from the borrowed vehicle’s owner and insurer.
- Whether the policy or later Second Schedule amendment afforded compensation.
Held
- No evidence established that the deceased was employed by the motorcycle owner. He was a permissive user or borrower and stood in the owner’s shoes. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.3)
- The no-fault character of Section 163A removes the need to prove negligence but does not turn a borrower into a third party against the borrowed vehicle’s insurer. A claim could have been made against the other offending vehicle’s driver, owner and insurer, but none was made against them. (¶¶ 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.9)
- The policy provided Rs.1 lakh personal accident cover for the owner-driver, which extended to the deceased in the owner’s shoes. The later Second Schedule amendment did not justify Rs.5 lakh in the circumstances, where the accident and the adjudications preceded it. (¶¶ 5.8, 5.9)
Result
Appeal partly allowed without costs. Claimants awarded Rs.1 lakh only under the insurance contract, with 7.5% annual interest from the claim petition until realisation; the Section 163A award was not restored.