1MAC No. 580 of 2023 2025:CGHC:47754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 580 of 2023  Sobha Kutare W/o Late Manikram Kutare, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ruabanda Basti Bajrang Chowk, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...(Claimant). ... Appellant versus 1. Nandu Kanaujia S/o Gopal Kanaujia, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nair Rantij Kirana Yuva Chownk, Rauabanda, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle CG-07, BM-8215). 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through The Regional Manager, Regional Office, Station Road, Deepak Nagar, Malvia Road, Durg City, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle CG-07, BM-8215) ... Respondents For Appellant :- Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 17.09.2025 1. The appellant/claimant had preferred application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.19 17:26:29 +0530 2MAC No. 580 of 2023 “Act of 1988”) before the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) claiming compensation to the extent of ₹11,00,000/- along with 12% interest, which has been dismissed. 2. Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding that deceased Karan Kutare was the son of owner Nandu Kanaujia of the vehicle though the deceased was the employee of Nandu Kanaujia and since the deceased was the employee of Nandu Kanaujia, he would be a third party and entitled for compensation to the tune of 5,00,000/- along with interest. ₹ 3. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for Insurance Company/respondent No.2, would support the impugned award and opposes the prayer made learned counsel for the appellant. She would also submit that the deceased was the employee of the owner and he borrowed the vehicle from the owner, therefore, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. In alternative, she would submit that, if the claimant is entitled for compensation, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only to tune of 1,00,000/- to her. ₹ 3MAC No. 580 of 2023 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records precisely. 5. The Claims Tribunal has held that deceased Karan Kutare was the son of the owner, whereas, as per the record father’s name of the deceased is Manikram Kutare and even owner Nandu Kanaujia in his statement has clearly stated that the deceased was his employee and on his instructions he was driving the offending vehicle which has not be been controverted by the Insurance Company and argument has been raised on behalf of the Insurance Company that the deceased was going to liquor shop for purchasing liquor after borrowing the offending vehicle from the owner. However, considering the aforesaid fact brought on record, it appears that deceased Karan Kutare was the employee of owner Nandu Kanaujia and not a son, therefore, the deceased would be a third party. As such, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is hereby rejected. 6. Now, the next contention of the appellant/claimant is that the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of ₹5,00,000/- as per Notification with regard to amendment in the Second Schedule annexed with Section 163-A of the 4MAC No. 580 of 2023 Act of 1988, fixing the compensation in the death case for third party, which came into effect on 22nd May, 2018, in the death case, compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 would be payable to 5,00,000/-. However, ₹ the Insurance Company, has only taken a plea that the deceased was not the third party and no other plea has been taken by the Insurance Company. In that view of the matter, the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of 5,00,000/- as per Notification dated 22 ₹ nd May, 2018 along with 6% from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 08.04.2019 till its realization. 7. Since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal within 45 days from today and thereafter, the Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the amount of compensation in accordance with law expeditiously. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 5MAC No. 580 of 2023 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Claims Tribunal and appellant/claimant for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit