DARSHAN SINGH,J. - (1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.2 in the claim petition) against the award dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter called the "Tribunal"), vide which though the claim petition filed by respondent No.1-claimant Hari Mohan under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the "Act") has been held to be not maintainable, yet he has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover on account of the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 08.08.2010.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case meticulously.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that Balbir Singh the father of respondent No.1-claimant was the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-31F-4293 involved in the accident and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. He contended that the learned Tribunal has held that as the claimant has borrowed the motorcycle owned by his father so his claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable. However, he has been wrongly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover. He contended that the compensation under personal accident cover can only be granted to the registered owner who is himself driving the vehicle. Admittedly, claimant Hari Mohan was not the registered owner, so as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the India Motor Tariff regulations, he was not entitled for compensation under personal accident cover. To support his contentions, he relied upon cases Sushila and others v. Sh. Pankaj Mahajan and another 2013 (1) PLR 715, Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Ramesh and others FAO No.3764 of 2010 decided on 14.05.2014 and M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company v. Ranjit and another 2016 ACJ 1050.;