Page No.1 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 2025:CGHC:32991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 698 of 2022 [Arising out of order dated 12.05.2022, passed in MACT No.52 of 2021 (Moti Bai & others v. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited) by the 1st Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG)] 1 - Moti Bai W/o Late Mandal Ram, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Giraudpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Turma, Police Sation And Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Arjun Patel S/o Late Mandal Ram, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Giraudpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Turma, Police Sation And Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Basanti Patel, D/o Late Mandal Ram, Aged About 17 Years R/o Village Giraudpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Turma, Police Sation And Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhaya Patel D/o Late Mandal Ram, Aged About 14 Years R/o Village Giraudpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Turma, Police Sation And Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Neha Patel D/o Late Mandal Ram, Aged About 11 Years R/o Village Giraudpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Turma, Police Sation And Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.07.16 16:34:40 +0530 Page No.2 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 15.07.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellants/claimants, who are legal representatives of deceased- Mandal Ram, are calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 12.05.2022, passed in MACT No.52 of 2021 (Moti Bai & others v. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited), by the learned 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short the “AMACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed being not maintainable. 2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that on the date of occurrence deceased- Mandal Ram while driving motor-cycle bearing registration No.CG-11-AU-8881 collied with a cow (cattle), due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died. Consequently, the appellants being LRs of the deceased filed claim application under Section 164 of the MV Act [Section 163(A) under the Old Act], which the learned AMACT by relying upon the decision of Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 proceeded to dismissed holding that the LRs of the deceased, who was owner of the vehicle, are not entitled 1 2009 (3) ACCD 1213 (SC) : 2009 (13) SCC 710 Page No.3 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 for compensation under Section 164 of the MV Act. Against which, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned AMACT is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the claim application of the appellants/claimants holding the same being not maintainable under the law and, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that the learned AMACT has rightly held that the appellants/claimants being the LRs of the deceased, who was the owner of the vehicle, are not entitled for compensation under Section 164 of the MV Act and, as such, the present appeal is liable to dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 164 of the MV Act provides as under: “164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Page No.4 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person. (3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.” 7. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provision would show that to invoke Section 164, the claimant has to be third party (unrelated to the owner) and the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay compensation, in case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of said motor vehicle, to the legal heirs of the victim/deceased or the victim, as the case may be. 8. In this regard the decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha and other 2 may be noticed herein profitably, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in Para-41 & 42 as under: “41. The second contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Shijo being the rider of the motorcycle, cannot be treated as a third party. It was pointed out that the claim under Section 163-A can only be raised at the behest of a third party. It seems that the instant determination raised at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the determination rendered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha [(2007) 9 SCC 263 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 443] wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p. 265, para 10) 2 2012 (2) SCC 356 Page No.5 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 “10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.” According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the rider of the vehicle involved in the accident was Shijo himself, he would stand in the shoes of the owner, and as such, no claim for compensation can be raised in an accident caused by him, under Section 163-A of the Act. 42. To substantiate his second contention, it would be essential for the petitioner to establish that Shijo having occupied the shoes of the owner, cannot be treated as the third party. Only factual details brought on record through reliable evidence can discharge the aforesaid onus. During the course of hearing, despite our queries, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out the relationship between Shijo and the owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident. Shijo is not shown to be an employee of the owner. He was not even shown as the representative of the owner. In order to establish the relationship between Shijo and the owner, the petitioner Insurance Company could have easily produced either the owner himself as a witness, or even the claimants themselves as witnesses. These or other witnesses who could have brought out the relationship between the owner and Shijo were not produced by the petitioner herein, before the Tribunal. The petitioner has, therefore, not discharged the onus which rested on its shoulders.” 9. Similarly, in the matter of Ningamma (supra) it has been held in Para-20 to 22 as under: “20. It was held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case [(2008) 5 SCC 736 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 67] that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the Page No.6 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under Section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. 21. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case [(2008) 5 SCC 736 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 67] is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 22. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA.” Page No.7 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 10. The above quoted principles of law has further been followed with approval in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company and another 3 wherein in Para-9.4 it has been held as under: “9.4. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Ningamma [Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] . In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, as such, in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163-A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan 3 (2020) 2 SCC 550 Page No.8 of 8 IN MAC-698-2022 Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma [Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] , and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.” 11. Returning to the facts of the present case in light of the above- stated principles of law, it is quite vivid that the appellants/claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased, who was the owner of the vehicle, are not entitled to get compensation in light of clear provision provided under Section 164 of the MV Act read with the dicta of the Supreme Court in the matters of Sinitha (supra) Ningamma (supra) and Ramkhiladi (supra) and, therefore, the learned MACT is absolutely justified in holding the claim application of the appellant/claimants being not maintainable in law. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, this will not bar the appellants/claimants to avail any other remedy available to them in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if