1 2025:CGHC:37230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 772 of 2022 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through- Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin 492010 Chhattisgarh. … Appellant versus Smt. Chanda Markam W/o Late Lakhan Markam Aged About 49 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Borid, Gujiyapara, P.S. Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None though served SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 30.07 .2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.08 16:35:03 +0530 2 appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 29/03/2022 passed in Claim Case No. 590/2019 whereby learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur has directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent/claimant for the death of her husband Lakhan Markam. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 15/11/2018, deceased Lakhan Markam was riding his Moped bearing Registration No. CG 04 ME 9332 carefully in slow speed and was returning to his house from Taarbandha when at about 7 PM, suddenly due to a pothole on the road, his vehicle lost balance and slipped due to which he suffered serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was taken to District Hospital, Fingeshwar wherein he was given first aid and thereafter, was taken to DKS Hospital, Raipur. While undergoing treatment, he died on 28/11/2018. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that since the deceased was driving his own vehicle and the respondent/claimant is his wife, the petition filed by her under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 would be not maintainable in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India 3 Insurance Company and Another1 wherein it has been held that in a claim under Section 163-A, deceased/victim has to be a third party in relation to vehicle in question and mere own-use of motor vehicle by owner/borrower/permissive use does not entitle such person(s) to maintain Section 163-A petition against insurer of their own/borrowed vehicle. He would further submit that as per the insurance policy, in case of death of the vehicle owner while driving the vehicle himself, compensation upto Rs. 1,00,000/- would be payable to him, however, on the date of the accident, deceased did not have valid driving license, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent/claimant though served. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions and perused the record. 6. Admittedly and undisputedly, deceased Lakhan Markam was the owner of the vehicle and he was also driving it at the time of the incident and respondent/claimant is his wife. The appellant (Insurance Company) issued a policy for the said vehicle (Ex. D/1) which was valid from 18/06/2018 to 17/06/2018 and a total premium of Rs. 1443/- was taken from him under various heads out of 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 4 which Rs. 50/- was taken under the head of personal accident in which if the vehicle is driven by the owner himself, Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation would be payable by the Company in case of death and Rs. 50,000/- would be paid in case of permanent disability provided that the owner/driver has valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. In this case, though the appellant (Insurance Company) took a plea that the deceased did not have valid driving license on the date of the accident but failed to prove the same. The Legal Assistant/ Officer of the appellant (Insurance Company) namely Rahul Choudhary (DW-1) has been examined before the Tribunal and in his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that he did not inquire about the license of the deceased from RTO Office, Gariyaband, which was the duty of the Insurance Company as they had taken the plea that deceased did not have valid driving license on the date of the accident, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that appellant (Insurance Company) would be liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent/claimant as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy (Ex. D/1). I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference with the impugned award. 5 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet