1 2025:CGHC:42155 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1171 of 2023 New India Insurance (Correct Name Is Assurance) Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Local Address - Shriram Trade Center, 2nd Floor, Above Axis Bank, Infront Of Rejeev Plaza, Old Bus Statnd, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.),(Insurer Of Vehicle Maruti Van C.G.- 10 - Nc - 1842),.... (Non - Applicant No. 3) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sunita Bai Sahu W/o Tilakram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Beletara, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shatruhan Lal Sahu S/o Tilakram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Beletara, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Brihaspati Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Nawagaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.),(Owner Of Vehicle Maruti Van C.G.- 10 - Nc - 1842),....(Non - Applicant No. 1) ... Respondents For Appellant :Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents 1 & 2 :Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 20.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking challenging the impugned award dated 23/03/2023 passed by learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 979/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Aman Sahu and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 25/04/2021 at about 2 PM, deceased Aman Sahu was driving Maruti Van bearing Registration No. CG 10 NC 1842 along with one Shatruhan Lal and Rajendra Sahu sitting as passengers and they were going from Village Beltara to Village Kuli and on the way, since the tyre of the said vehicle burst, Aman Sahu suffered injuries on his head, hands and legs and while undergoing treatment on 25/04/2021, he died. 3 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that on account of bursting of tyre of the offending vehicle, which was owned by respondent No. 3 herein, deceased Aman Sahu, who was driving the vehicle, suffered grievous injuries and died and since the said vehicle was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) and the Insurance Policy (Ex. D/1) covered the risk of third party and proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the claimants with an interest of 8 % per annum as per the Second Schedule attached with Section 163 of the Act of 1988. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since deceased Aman Sahu had borrowed the vehicle from his relative Ram Kumar Sahu (respondent No. 3), therefore, he would also fall under 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 respondents No. 1 and 2 herein/claimants would not be 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. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the impugned award and submit that the deceased 4 Aman Sahu, being the borrower, would undoubtedly fall within the category of third party, therefore, as per the Insurance Policy (Ex. D/1), the Claims Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on account of bursting of tyre of the offending vehicle, which was owned by respondent No. 3 herein namely Ram Kumar Sahu and it was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) covering the risk of third party for which appropriate premium had been paid. 8. 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 (Ex. D/1) ?” 9. “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, - 5 (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 hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;” 10. 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 Another1). 11. In the instant case, the appellant (Insurance Company) has solely pleaded that since deceased Aman Sahu 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 1 (2013) 3 SCC 541 6 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. 3 herein Ram Kumar Sahu 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 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 and 2/claimants have 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. 7 12. 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/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet