-1- 2025:CGHC:48131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 235 of 2021 1 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Having Its Raipur Office 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaxa , In Front Of Udyog Bhawan , Near Mining Office , Ring Road No. 01, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kanti Bai W/o Ramavtar Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Bilha , Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ram Prasad Sharma @ Karan S/o Amrika Aged About 28 Years R/o Mendrapara, Ward No. 15, Ratanpur , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner And Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For appellant/Insurance Company :Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For respondent No.1 :Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.09.2025 1) Heard 2) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 23.01.2021 passed by learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.202/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant -2- for the death of deceased Ram Avtar Yadav and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 3) Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.02.2016 at about 9 PM, respondent No.1/claimant along with the deceased Ram Avtar Yadav were going on motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.10/A.B./9924 to Village Mahmand bypass road, they fell down along with motorcycle, due to pit on road, as a result of which, Ram Avtar Yadav received grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 4) Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that since the said vehicle was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) and the Insurance Policy covered the risk of third party and proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the claimant with an interest of 6% per annum as per the Second Schedule attached with Section 163 of the Act of 1988. 5) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased Ram Avtar Yadav as well as Ram Prasad Sharma who was owner of the vehicle were not having driving licence at the time of accident. He would further submit that since deceased Ram Avtar Yadav had borrowed the vehicle from Ram Prasad Sharma (respondent No. 2), therefore, he would fall within the category of owner of the vehicle as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 and as the vehicle was in his possession at the time of the accident, therefore, the respondent No.1/claimant would not be -3- entitled for any compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 6) Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 would support the impugned award and submit that the deceased Ram Avtar Yadav, being the borrower, would undoubtedly fall within the category of third party, therefore, as per the Insurance Policy, the Claims Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in favour of respondents No.1/claimant and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8) It is not in dispute that the accident occurred as the deceased lost balance due to pit on road, the motorcycle was owned by respondent No.2 herein and it was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) covering the risk of third party for which appropriate premium was paid. 9) The only question involved in this appeal is, "whether the deceased would fall under the category of third party for claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, as third party risk is covered by the Insurance Policy ?" 10) "Owner" has been defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 which states as under:- "2. Definitions, -In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of -4- hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;" 11) A careful perusal of the aforesaid definition would show that "owner" would cover the person (i) in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, (ii) if such person is a minor, his/her guardian, and (iii) if the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the said vehicle under that agreement. Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 creates legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee only for the purpose of the Act of 1988, but not for the purpose of law in general (See: Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and Another' reported in (2013) 3 SCC 541. 12) In the instant case, the appellant (Insurance Company) has solely pleaded that since deceased Ram Avtar Yadav was driving the offending vehicle, he would not come under the category of third party. It was not pleaded by the appellant (Insurance Company) that deceased would fall under the category of 'owner' as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that deceased was the registered owner of the vehicle as it is admitted fact that respondent No.2 herein Ram Prasad Sharma was the registered owner of the vehicle and it is also not the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that the offending vehicle was subject matter of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation and was in the possession of the deceased under any of the aforesaid agreements. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held -5- that deceased was driving the vehicle in the capacity of the 'owner'. In my considered opinion, though deceased was related to the owner of the vehicle, yet he would fall within the category of third party as he was not the owner and had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and since the vehicle was duly insured covering the risk of third party, the respondents No. 1/claimant has rightly been held entitled for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. 13) Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha