1 / 7 2025:CGHC:22812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 17 of 2020 1. Ranjana Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village - Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2. Kishan S/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur Aged About 17 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor, Through Their Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village - Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Chanchal D/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur Aged About 15 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor, Through Their Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village - Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Sta- tion Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 4. Ku. Manisha D/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur Aged About 13 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor, Through Their Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, 2 / 7 Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village - Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5. Ankit S/o Late Vijay Singh @ Pritahviraj Singh Thakur Aged About 11 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor, Through Their Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village - Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants/claimants versus 1. Yogesh Sahu S/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Raipur Road, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Owner), 2. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Fourth Floor, Gwalani Chamber, Office No.T-8, Vyapar Vihar Road, Near ICICI Bank Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) (Vehicle). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None though served. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 10/6/2025 1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 12.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.81/2018 by which learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal) has dismissed application of appellants seeking 3 / 7 compensation on account of death of deceased Vijay Singh alias Prithivraj in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 30.6.2018 Vijay Singh (since deceased) along with his one Jalesh Yadav was returning Kawardha from village Podi on motorcycle bearing registration number CG09-ZE-3301, when they reached near Jail Turn, Vilage Joratal suddenly two cattle came in front of motorcycle as a result Vijay Singh fell down and sustained grievous injuries on head and other parts of body. He was taken to the District Hospital, Kabirdham where he was given primary treatment and looking to the nature of grievous injuries, he was referred to Raipur where he died in Shri Narayan Hospital during course of treatment. Claimants filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.48,50,000/- pleading that they are legal heirs of deceased and were dependent on his income. 3. Non-applicant No.1 opposed the application by filing its reply. It was pleaded that deceased was not doing work of Mason, as pleaded, and the amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. On the date of accident, the motorcycle was insured with non-applicant No.2, therefore, in case, any compensation is awarded to claimants, then insurance company is liable to be pay the same. 4. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply to application and denied the averments made therein, except the admitted facts. Accident has not been occurred on account of negligence of non-applicant No.1 4 / 7 and even any accident is found to have been occurred from the insured vehicle then the same was the outcome of negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The deceased had stepped into shoe of the owner, therefore, he cannot be termed as third party and hence, the application of claimants is not maintainable. On the date of accident, deceased was not having valid and effective driving license, which amounts to violation of policy condition. Non- applicant No.1 has also not intimated the accident to the insurance company as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not at all liable to indemnify the insured. 5. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the respective parties dismissed application of claimants by the impugned award on the ground that claimants failed to prove that at the time of accident deceased was driving motorcycle in the capacity of co-driver or employee of the owner of motorcycle and therefore, they are not entitled to get compensation under Section 163A of the Act of 1988. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation to the claimants/ appellants and the reasons assigned for not awarding the same are not only illegal and unjust but also against the material available on record. Referring to decision in the case of Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Com. Limited reported in AIR 2020 SC 527, learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the liability of Insurance Company would be as per the terms and conditions of contract of insurance 5 / 7 policy and under the policy, the risk of owner-driver is covered and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation to the extent of coverage of risk under PA to owner- driver. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Insurance Company would submit that the policy issued for the vehicle in question does not cover the risk of deceased rider as the policy covers only third party claims and the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle. He further submitted that deceased was not registered owner of the vehicle and the insurance policy stands in the name of non- applicant No.1/respondent No.1 herein, therefore, appellants are not entitled to compensation even under Personal Accident Cover. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. To appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court perused the copy of insurance policy, which has been placed on record as Ex.NA-1. From perusal of insurance policy, it is clear that a premium of Rs.50/- was charged towards compulsory Personal Accident cover for owner-driver and liability of insurance company was limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. 10.In case of of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a person borrowed motorcycle from its owner and met with an accident resulting into death then borrower stepped into the shoes of the owner of vehicle, so insurance company is liable to 6 / 7 pay compensation to the claimant of the deceased because insurance company took premium for personal accident of the owner and the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner. 11. In case of Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Com. Limited reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue with regard to coverage of a person driving the vehicle other than the owner and risk of owner-cum-driver was covered under the policy and observed thus: “9.8. However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs 1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed herein-above, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs 1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs 5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs 5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court in 10-5-2018 [United India Insurance Co. v. Ramkhiladi, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3264] i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed herein-above, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.” (emphasis supplied) 7 / 7 12.In the case at hand also, deceased driver was the permissible user of motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent no. 2. Deceased driver was also holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, which is produced before the Claims Tribunal as Ex.A-11. Since the deceased had stepped into the shoes of owner of motorcycle and respondent No. 2- Insurance Company took premium for personal accident of the owner-driver, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, claimants- appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.1 Lakh from the insurance company. 13.In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is hereby set aside; application of claimants-appellants is allowed in part and it is directed that appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by respondent No.2- Insurance Company. This amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till its realization. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI