THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SINGLE BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024

The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited,

Having its Office at National Highway-10,

Opposite Tourism Department,

P.O. & P.S. Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.

….. Appellant/Insurer

Versus

1. Mr. Jigmee Lepcha,

Aged about 22 years,

Son of late Netuk Lepcha,

P.O. Dzongu & P.S. Mangan,

Sikkim-737116.

2. Mr. Sonam Rinzing Lepcha,

Aged about 54 years,

Son of late Kabo Lepcha,

P.O. Dzongu & P.S. Mangan,

Sikkim-737116.

..... Respondents/Claimant Nos. 1 & 2.

Both residents of Sangdong, Hee Gyathang GPU, Lower

Dzongu, P.O. Dzongu, P.S. Mangan Sikkim.

3. Mr. Lukbo Thing Lepcha,

Son of Mr. Phurba Tshering Lepcha,

Resident of Ray Mindu, Ranka,

Sikkim-737102.

…..Respondent No.3/owner of the motorcycle.

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988.

(Impugned judgment and award dated 11.09.2024 passed by the

learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikkim at

Mangan in MACT Case No.01 of 2024 directing the

appellant/insurer to pay Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 10% per

2

MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepch a & Ors.

annum on the said sum, to the claimants from the date of filing of

the claim petition i.e. 02.12.2023 until full and final payment.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Mr. Madan Kumar Sundas, Advocate for the

Appellant/Insurer.

Ms. Vidya Lama and Mr. Nima Tshering Sherpa,

Advocates for the Respondent nos.1 & 2/Claimant

Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Sishir Mothay, Advocate for Respondent

no.3/owner of the motorcycle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing : 14.10.2025

Date of Judgment : 29.10.2025

J U D G M E N T

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the award of

compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- granted to the

respondent nos. 1 and 2 (claimant nos. 1 and 2) under

personal accident cover with interest at 10% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition till full and final

payment.

2. On 23.11.2023 the deceased met with an accident

while riding a motorcycle borrowed from his friend-the

respondent no.3 Lukbo Thing Lepcha (the owner of the

motorcycle) and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on

30.11.2023. The deceased-late Karma Topden Lepcha was

24 years when he died. The deceased was the elder brother

of claimant no.1 and nephew of claimant no.2.

3

MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepch a & Ors.

3. The motorcycle was duly insured by the respondent

no.3 vide insurance policy (exhibit-C/9). The learned

Tribunal has concluded that the motorcycle had a valid

registration certificate as well as insurance policy and the

appellant has admitted that the insurance policy was

issued by the appellant and it covered the date of the

accident. The appellant also admitted that premium of

Rs.295/- was paid for personal accident to owner-driver

and under the limits of liability clause, personal accident

cover for owner-driver is Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The learned Tribunal has also held that the

respondent no.3 had admitted that he had given the

motorcycle to the deceased who was his friend and

authorised him vide authorisation letter (exhibit-C/12)

which was valid till 14.03.2024 and covered the accident

date.

5. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased was thus

a borrower who stepped into the shoes of the vehicle owner

i.e. respondent no.3 relying upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India

Insurance Company Limited

1.

1

(2009) 13 SCC 710

4

MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepch a & Ors.

6. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the

claimants were not entitled to the claim as made by them

under section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the

Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.

Rajni Devi & Ors

2

had laid down that vehicle owner cannot

be the claimant as well as recipient of the claim and the

liability under section 163A is on the owner of the vehicle.

7. However, the learned Tribunal opined that the

claimants were still entitled to relief as the insurance policy

provided for a personal accident cover for owner-driver to

the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- drawing strength from the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi & Anr. vs.

United India Insurance Company & Anr.

3

.

8. The learned Tribunal also noticed that the insurance

policy (exhibit-C/9) covered the deceased and he w as

permitted to drive the motorcycle.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

as the personal accident cover was for owner-driver it was

not transferrable and the claimants could not have sought

compensation for the death of the deceased who was not

the owner-driver. He also argued that as the learned

Tribunal held that the claim petition filed under section

2

(2008) 5 SCC 736

3

(2020) 2 SCC 550

5

MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepch a & Ors.

164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable,

compensation could not have been granted.

10. The Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) relying upon

its earlier view in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd . (supra)

opined that as the borrower was authorised to drive the

accident vehicle by its owner he would step into the shoes

of the owner of the motorcycle. Thus, the deceased who had

borrowed the motorcycle from the owner through a valid

authorisation letter had stepped into the shoes of the

owner when he met with an accident.

11. In Ramkhiladi (supra), in almost similar fact situation,

the Supreme Court opined that the claim made by the

claimaints therein under section 163A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. The Supreme

Court however also opined that under the contract of

insurance the claimants were entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as

per the terms of the contract of insurance as the driver

had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.

Similarly, the learned Tribunal has correctly opined that

the claim petition under section 164 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 filed by the claimants was not maintainable but

under the insurance policy the claimants were entitled to

Rs.15,00,000/- under the personal accident cover for the

6

MAC Appeal No. 23 of 2024

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jigmee Lepch a & Ors.

owner-driver as the deceased had stepped into the shoes of

the owner i.e. respondent no.3.

12. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any

merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed

along with the interim application.

( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )

Judge

Approved for reporting : Yes

Internet : Yes

to/