1 2025:CGHC:28721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 687 of 2018 1 - Ramkumar Mishra S/o Late Bhagwan Prasad Mishra Aged About 48 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o Purana Chandaniya Para, Ward No.17, Janjgir, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sandhya Mishra W/o Shri Ramkumar Mishra Aged About 45 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o Purana Chandaniya Para, Ward No.17, Janjgir, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Dayanand Tiwari S/o Shri Bhuwanlal Tiwari Aged About 26 Years R/o Janjgir, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, Ward No.08, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Motorcycle No. Cg-11-Aj-1294), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Branch Manager Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Third Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Besides Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. Cg-11-Aj-1294), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 18:59:37 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in law while dismissing the claim petition stating that the claim petition itself is not maintainable as the person driving the vehicle has expired due to his own negligence which is not in accordance with law. 2. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company submits that in any form the application for compensation is not maintainable. The person who was driving the vehicle has expired, as such it cannot be treated as a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, however, he submits that if it could be an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act then also as per Ramkhiladi v. The United India Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 2 SCC 550 if extra premium would have been paid then at the most Rs.1,00,000/- could be awarded. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that even if the claim is not maintainable, the driver of the vehicle who has expired is entitled to at least Rs.1,00,000/- under personal head as per dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi case (supra). 4. This has been opposed by learned counsel for the insurance company stating that the premium which the appellants is 3 saying is not for the pillion rider other than the owner, as such it is not payable. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi case (supra), since the premium was paid for either driver of the vehicle or the owner, the insurance company is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants of the person who has expired under the limited liability. Accordingly, instead of sending the matter back to the Tribunal, the insurance company is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh