This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the award dated 16th May, 2007 passed in Claim Case No.39/2005 by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalgarh, Distt. Morena, whereby an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") on account of death of Dashrath Singh i.e. husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 4 has been rejected on the ground that since the owner of the vehicle was himself driving the vehicle and Insurance Company had not insured the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the claim is not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meera Bai and others as reported in 2007 ACJ 821 and also on the judgment in the case of Smt. Sunita Lokhande v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. as reported in 2008 ACJ 921.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 163-A of the Act, it is apparent that insurer of the motor vehicle of the authorised owner shall be liable to pay in case of death or permanent disability due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the second schedule, to the legal heirs or victim, as the case may be. In view of this provision, it has been argued that in fact the Insurance Company is required to indemnify the owner of the vehicle whose vehicle has been insured by the Insurance Company for the act of negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle creating liability on the owner of the vehicle from such rash and negligent driving. It is submitted that if the owner himself is driving the vehicle and some fault occurs in the vehicle resulting in an accident, then owner being not a third party, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable by the owner. In this regard, attention of this Court has been invited to the law laid down in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors as reported in 2008 ACJ 1441. Similarly, attention has been drawn to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 2009 ACJ 2020 wherein the Supreme Court has held that liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle, therefore, a person cannot be both a claimant and recipient with respect to the claim. In fact, Bench of this Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita and others as reported in 2012 ACJ 2400 has held in respect of the application under Section 163-A of the Act, that the same is not maintainable in case of accident by owner/driver.

4. It is apparent from the insurance policy, which has been exhibited in the present case as Ex.D/1, that premium of Rs.15/- was paid for the driver and the policy is a comprehensive policy.

5. The issue in the present case is similar to one which has been decided by the Allahabad High Court in the case of United India Insurance Company v. Meera Devi & Ors. as reported in I (2015) ACC 322 (DB) (All.). The Allahabad High Court has distinguished the judgments in the cases of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, I (2009) ACC 297 (SC); New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Meera Bai and Others, III (2007) ACC 655 (SC); Deepak Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 110(2004) DLT 523 (SC) and Chimaji Rao Shirke and Another v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., V (2000) SLT 708 and has held that when the owner was driving his own vehicle which met with an accident, the question is whether the insurance policy covers the personal insurance of the driver or not. In this regard, cover note of the insurance policy has been filed before the Tribunal and it is apparent from the said insurance policy that any person including the insured was entitled to drive the vehicle. Under the heading liability I find that premium of Rs.15/- was paid towards the legal liability to paid driver as per endorsement I.M.T. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the Supreme Court against the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Meera Devi (supra) has been dismissed keeping the question of law open. Thus, since the appeal has also been dismissed, the aforesaid judgment has attained finality and the ratio of that case can be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. In terms of Section 2(9) of the Act driver is defined as under :-

"2(9). "driver", includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle".

Perusal of the aforesaid provision, clearly demonstrates that any person who is behind the steering wheel is a driver and consequently, I am of the opinion that owner of the vehicle who is behind the steering wheel of the vehicle would also be a driver. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Meera Devi (supra) in para 12, 13 and 14 has held as under :-

"12. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Rajni Devi (supra). We are of the opinion, that the said decision has no application as in that case a claim was made by the claimants of the deceased/owner, on the ground, that the policy covered the personal insurance. The Supreme Court held, that the premium paid under the heading "own damage" was to cover the damage occurred to a vehicle and not for injury to a person or the owner. The Supreme Court held, that the owner of the vehicle can only claim compensation provided the personal accident insurance had been taken out, which in the said case had not been done.

13. The Supreme Court, in Meera Bais case (supra), held, that the insurance policy does not cover the risk to the driver of the vehicle in view of the insurance policy, which indicated liability to paid driver and/or conductor and, in that scenario, the Supreme Court held, that the owner, who was driving the vehicle, was not covered under the policy. The said case in our humble view is distinguishable for the following reasons.

14. Section 2(9) of the Act defines driver, which, in our view encompasses the owner also to be the person who is behind the steering wheel and driving the vehicle. The cover note of the Insurance Policy in the instant case includes the insured and any other person, who is entitled to drive. The words used in the insurance policy are as under :

"Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive Any person including insured."

7. George Herbert Mead, a renowned sociologist, has pronounced the role theory. "Role Theory" is a perspective in sociology and in social psychology that considers most of everyday activity to be the acting out of socially defined categories (e.g. mother, manager, teacher). Each social role is a set of rights, duties, expectations, norms and behaviours that a person has to face and fulfil. The model is based on the observation that people behave in a predictable way, and that an individuals behaviour is context specific, based on social position and other factors. Thus, a person when behind the steering wheel will be driver irrespective of his position as a owner, passenger or a hirer of a vehicle. The basic proposition behind the role theory is that the division of labour in society takes the form of the interaction among heterogeneous specialised positions that we call roles; social roles included "appropriate" and "permitted" forms of behaviour, guided by social norms, which are commonly known and hence determine expectations; roles are occupied by individuals, who are called "actors". Thus, individual is capable of playing several roles simultaneously and merely because a person was in the role of owner of a vehicle at a particular time, does not estop him from playing the role of a driver. The definition of driver under Section 2(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in my humble opinion does not exclude the owner.

8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this M.A. is allowed. Impugned award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the question of quantum of compensation after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the aforesaid question within a period of three months.

Appeal Allowed.