NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 152 of 2022 1 - Kamla Bai W/o Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Baheradih, Police Station And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Praveen Yadav S/o Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Baheradih, Police Station And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Arvind Kumar S/o Late Santosh Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Baheradih, Police Station And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Main Road, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Motor Cycle No. Cg-11-Au-1844), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent __________________________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Shri Devendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Sourabh Sharma. __________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17 /03/2026 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MACT No. 88/2021 by which the learned Claims Tribunal has found that the Claim application was not maintainable under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’). 2. Fact of the case in nutshell is that on 16.12.2020 at about 07:20PM that unknown motorcycle dashed the Motor Cycle of the deceased bearing ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.26 12:41:33 +0530 -2- registration No. C.G. -11/AU/1844 deceased Santosh Yadav was driving the offending vehicle and died on the spot. 3. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application of the appellant/claimant filed under section 166 of the MV Act has rejected the application under section 166 of the MV Act which was held to be not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding the it to be non-maintainable. Thus impugned order deserve to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that deceased was the owner of the Offending vehicle and Insurance Policy does not cover personal accident risk. He placed reliance upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jhuma Saha And Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. There is not dispute to the fact that the deceased was the owner of the offending vehicle. Perusal of the Insurance Policy does not indicate as to whether the Insurance Company has accepted the premium amount of the personal accident coverage of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’bble Supreme Cout in case of Jhuma Saha & Ors. (Supra) held that the Claim application under section 166 of the MV Act was not maintainable. In the opinion of the Court, there is no error apparent, illegality or irregularity by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, this appeal fails and dismissed. Sd/-Sd/- /-/-/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish