(MAC No.630/2019) 2026:CGHC:20951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 630 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 14-1-2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Claim (MACT) Case No.7/2017} Gouri Bai Patel, W/o Shiv Lal Patel, aged about 48 years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Charbhantha, (Amapali), Police Station Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1. Megma D.H.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Megma House- 24, Street Park, Kolkata 700016, Regional Office Branch Manager, Megma D.H.I. General House No.3, Naya G.R. Floor, Near Rajkumar College, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Vehicle) 2. Shiv Lal Patel, S/o Loknath Patel, aged about 52 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Charbhantha (Amapali), Police Station Baramkela, Tehsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Owner Vehicle) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondents : None present. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 05/05/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) has been preferred by the appellant herein/ SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.05.06 10:44:34 +0530 (MAC No.630/2019) claimant questioning the impugned award dated 14-1-2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Claim (MACT) Case No.7/2017, by which her application under Section 163A of the MV Act has been rejected. 2. Deceased Dinesh Patel was the son of Shivlal Patel – registered owner of the vehicle. While driving the offending vehicle, he suffered accident and died leading to which his mother Gouri Bai Patel preferred application under Section 163A of the MV Act which has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal finding that the deceased was the son of the registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, the registered owner would not be liable to pay compensation, as the deceased was driving the vehicle after obtaining the same from his father. 3. In this regard, the principles laid down in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni Devi and others1 may be noticed herein in which the LRs of owner of the vehicle filed application under Section 163A of the MV Act which was held to be not maintainable by the Supreme Court and it has been held as under: - “11. The liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to.” 1 (2008) 5 SCC 736 (MAC No.630/2019) 4. In that view of the matter, the application under Section 163A of the MV Act filed by the mother of the deceased claiming compensation for the death of her son is held to be not maintainable. However, since the extra premium has not been paid to take personal accident coverage, she would not be entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma