Facts
The appellant was riding a motorcycle owned by respondent No. 1 when it collided head-on with a motorcycle owned by respondent No. 3. He sustained fractures and other injuries.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, 6–7He filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle he was riding and the owner of the other motorcycle.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, 6–7The Tribunal dismissed the claim, reasoning that the appellant, as a borrower who had stepped into the owner’s shoes, could not claim under Section 163A against that vehicle’s owner or insurer.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, 6–7The appellant challenged the dismissal in this appeal.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, 6–7The High Court noted the medical evidence, including a 30% disability assessment of the right lower limb.
Source reference: p. 8Issues
1. Whether the Tribunal’s judgment and award dismissing the claim were erroneous and illegal
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the appellant, who was riding a borrowed motorcycle, could recover compensation from the owner of the other motorcycle involved in the accident
Source reference: pp. 6–8Law Applied
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for compensation without requiring proof of wrongful act, neglect, or default, but the Court relied on Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company, (2020) 2 SCC 550, for the proposition that a borrower who steps into the shoes of the vehicle’s owner cannot maintain a Section 163A claim against that vehicle’s owner or insurer.
Source reference: p. 6The Court also applied Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended, which prescribes compensation of ₹2,50,000 for grievous hurt without requiring proof of fault.
Source reference: pp. 9–10Reasoning
The Court accepted that the appellant, as the borrower of respondent No. 1’s motorcycle, could not recover under Section 163A from that motorcycle’s owner or insurer.
Source reference: pp. 6–10However, it held that this did not bar a claim against the owner of the other motorcycle involved in the collision.
Source reference: pp. 6–10The accident and involvement of both vehicles were established by the documentary evidence, and the medical records showed grievous injuries.
Source reference: pp. 6–10Applying Section 164, the Court held respondent No. 3, the owner of the other motorcycle, liable to pay the statutory compensation for grievous hurt.
Source reference: pp. 6–10Holding
The Court answered the principal issue in the affirmative, set aside the Tribunal’s dismissal, and partly allowed the appeal.
It awarded the appellant ₹2,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.
Source reference: pp. 10–11The Court made no order as to costs.
Source reference: pp. 10–11Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19884
Original Court PDF
SHRI. BABU @ BASAU @ BASAPPA @ BASAVARAJ S/O. DURGANNAVAR S/O. YALLAPPA DURGANNAVARvsSHRI. MALLIKARJUN S RAMADURG
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
