A motorcycle rider cannot claim Section 164 compensation as a third party against the vehicle’s owner and insurer.

The appellants, the deceased’s mother and minor sister, sought compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for his death in a motorcycle accident.

The deceased was riding a motorcycle owned by respondent No. 1 when it allegedly developed a mechanical fault and struck a roadside tree.

The claimants asserted that the deceased worked for the owner and was travelling in connection with that work.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the deceased was riding the motorcycle and was not a third party to it.

The High Court condoned a 13-day delay in the appeal and heard it at admission.

Whether the deceased’s legal representatives could maintain a claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle that the deceased was riding.

Whether the assertion that the deceased was employed by the motorcycle’s owner affected the maintainability of the claim.

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act was the basis of the claim, and Section 173 provided for the appeal.

The Court relied on Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co., (2020) 2 SCC 550, which, following Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, held that a person who borrows and rides a vehicle steps into the owner’s shoes and cannot claim under Section 163-A against that vehicle’s owner and insurer.

The High Court applied that principle to the maintainability question under Section 164.

The deceased was riding the respondent-owner’s motorcycle when the accident occurred; the claim was brought against that vehicle’s owner and insurer.

The Court therefore treated the deceased as not being a third party to the motorcycle and applied the principle that a borrower-rider steps into the owner’s shoes.

Although the appellants claimed the deceased was employed by the owner, the Court found no evidence establishing either the employment relationship or that the deceased was driving in the course of such employment.

That assertion therefore did not alter the Court’s conclusion on maintainability.

The 13-day delay was condoned, and there was no order as to costs.