-1- 2025:CGHC:36992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 875 of 2020 1 - Jeevan Masih S/o Lt. Mular Masih Aged About 44 Years 2 - Sukhlata W/o Jeevan Masih Aged About 43 Years 3 - Sadeep S/o Lt. Sujeet Masih Aged About 2-1/2 Years Appellant No.3 is Minor Through Natural Guardian Grandfather Appellant No. 1 All are R/o Vill. - Vishrampur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (CG) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Divisional Manager No. 2 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Behind L.I.C. Office Pandari Raipur, P.S. - Pandari, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh [Insurer of Motorcycle No. CG-04-DS-1280] 2 - Smt. Anju Masih W/o Lt. Sujeet Masih, Through - Major Masih Near Vihar Vyapar Railway Crossing, P.S. - Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahima Masih D/o Lt. Sujeet Masih, Through - Major Masih Near Vihar Vyapar Railway Crossing, P.S. - Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.28 11:06:21 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 29 /07/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) by claimants/appellants challenging the award passed by learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 23.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.80 of 2012. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 before learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 06.10.2010 Sujeet Masih was returning from Nandghat to his village Vishrampur on motorcycle No.CG 04 DS 1280 along with Shailesh Masih and Anis Masih. Shailesh Masih was driving the motorcycle and owner of motorcycle namely Sujeet Masih and one more Anis Kumar Masih were sitting as pillion. On the way, rear wheel tyre of motorcycle got burst and motorcycle became unbalanced, due to which, all three occupants of motorcycle fell on the ground and remained lying on the road in serious condition. At the same time, an unknown vehicle ran over all the three persons lying on the ground and fled away. Due to injuries suffered by them in the accident, all three died. At the time of accident deceased -Sujeet Masih was 26 years young man, claimants being parents of deceased claimed total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. -3- 3. Non-applicant/insurance company by filing its written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded inter alia that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle. More persons were sitting on the motorcycle than the seating capacity which is violation of conditions of insurance policy. Driver of the motorcycle did not have any valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle which was in the knowledge of owner of motorcycle. As it is a hit and run case, as envisaged under Section 161 of Act of 1988, the claim application is not maintainable. Hence, the claim application be dismissed. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties dismissed the claim application holding that legal representative of deceased are not entitled to receive compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Sujeet Masih while travelling on motorcycle No. CG-04-DS-1280 along with Shailesh Masih and Anish Masih met with an accident and succumbed to motor accidental injuries suffered by him. He contended that claimants thereafter have filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 in the said case. Claimants are not required to prove negligence of other person or accident arising out of negligence on the part of driver of any other vehicle. Learned Claims Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim application recording a finding that to get benefit of insurance policy covered under the personal accident coverage, it is -4- necessary for the insured person to be driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He submits that in the facts of case, claim application with regard to death of Sujeet Masih ought to have been allowed to the extent of risk covered under personal accident coverage of the policy Ex.D-1. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/ insurance company would submit that admittedly deceased Sujeet Masih was not driving the offending vehicle. He was sitting on the motorcycle as a pillion along with another pillion Anis Masih. He contended that driver of the motorcycle was not possessed with driving licence as copy of licence has not been produced by claimants in the claim proceedings nor before the police official who investigated the crime. As the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy condition i.e. absence of licence, the claimants will not get benefit of the clause 'Personal Accident Coverage' of driver- cum-owner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 8. Undisputedly, in the case at hand, deceased Sujeet Masih (owner) was not the driver of motorcycle but he was siting on the vehicle as pillion and vehicle was being driven by his friend- Shailesh Masih who also succumbed to injuries in the accident. 9. Copy of insurance policy is available in record Ex.D-1. Perusal of the insurance police Ex.D-1 shows that premium was paid covering the -5- risk of owner under ‘personal accident coverage’. To get the benefit of insurance policy, conditions enumerated in the insurance policy is to be complied with. Insurance policy has been issued in the name of deceased- Sujeet Masih, however, at the time of accident, owner- Sujeet Masih was not driving the motorcycle rather it was being driven by his friend Shailesh Masih and therefore Sujeet Masih did not come under the definition of ‘third party’ and according to condition of insurance policy (Ex.D-1) he was the ‘first party’. 10. It is an admitted fact in the case that Sujeet Masih died due to motor accidental injuries caused by an unknown vehicle. In case of Ningamma and Anr. Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 and New India Assurance Co.Ltd. V. Sadanand Mukhi (2009) 2 SCC 417, Honble Supreme Court has held that Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein owner of motor vehicle himself is involved. Liability under Section 163-A of the act of 1988 is on the owner of the vehicle .So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient with respect to a claim. Therefore, heirs of deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. 11.Admittedly the deceased at the time of accident was not driving the vehicle. Personal accident cover under the policy is for owner driver, and owner as per definition under Section 2 (30) of the Act of 1988 is a person in whose name vehicle is registered. In case at hand, though the vehicle was registered in name of deceased, however, he was not driving the vehicle and, therefore, the benefit of PA cover will not be -6- available. 12.For the aforementioned discussions and law annunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. Appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen