1 2025:CGHC:32378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1362 of 2018 Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Sada Complex Transport Nagar Korba, Chhattisgarh. Branch Office- The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Near Ambedkar Chowk, Campus Of Ambika Petrol Pump, Ambikapur Thana And Tehsil- Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Shamina Parveen W/o Late Jamshed Aged About 25 Years Resident Village Serak, Thana and Tehsil Chandwa, Latehar, Jharkhand. 2 - Mo. Sahanwaj S/o Late Jamshed Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Netural Guardian Mother Shamina Parveen W/o Late Jamshed, Resident Village Serak, Thana and Tehsil Chandwa, Latehar, Jharkhand., 3 - Ashrun Nisha W/o Sarafat Miya Aged About 65 Years Resident Village Serak, Thanaand Tehsil Chandwa, Latehar, Jharkhand., 4 - Sarafat Miya S/o Late Khedu Miya Aged About 70 Years Resident Village Serak, Thana and Tehsil Chandwa, Latehar, Jharkhand. (Claimants) 5 - Manoj Kumar Agrawal S/o Mahabir Prasad Agrawal Aged About 36 Years Resident Bazar Road, Lakhanpur, Thana And Tehsil Lakhanpur District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh......(Vehicle owner) --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 18:49:31 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 11.07.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 01.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.179/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.4,62,839/- as total compensation and fastened the liability for payment of compensation to the non-applicants therein jointly and severally. 2. The claimants have also filed cross-appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, on 13.04.2016, the driver Jamshed while loading the coal at Coal Mine Parsa in the Tralla bearing registration No.CG-15/AC/3188 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), going towards Kamapal Siding, when he reached near Village Madanpur, he turned the offending vehicle on the left side to save a motorcyclist, suddenly the steering of the offending vehicle failed and the offending vehicle fell into the ditch, due to which, Jamshed fell down with a jerk and 3 wheel of the offending vehicle ran over him, on account of which he died on the spot due to severe injuries over his head, chest and other parts of the body. 4. The legal representatives of the deceased filed claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) on account of untimely death of Jamshed, seeking compensation of Rs.11,45,000/- under different heads. 5. Non-applicant No.1/owner of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. The Insurance Company has filed its written statement denying the fact of accident and pleaded that on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the insurance Company is not liable for any amount of compensation. It has been further pleaded that there is no mechanical fault in the offending vehicle and there was breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, as such Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any amount of compensation. 7. On appreciating the pleadings made by the parties as well as after considering the material on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation Rs.4,62,839/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to 4 satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was himself responsible for the accident, as such the claimants are not entitled for any amount of compensation. He further submits that driver of the offending vehicle was having fake licence on the date of accident and the claimants have pleaded excessive income of the deceased. It has been contented that the offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company with Commercial Vehicle Package Policy and as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the Supreme Court, relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, in case of personal accident, the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. He has also placed reliance in the matter of G. Nagarathna and others v. G. Manjunatha and another passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2850/2017 vide judgment dated 23.11.2024, to buttress his submissions. 9. No one appeared on behalf of respondents to contest the claim. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5 11. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased being the driver of the offending vehicle in question does not fall in the category of a third party. The law on this point is already settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra) wherein the Supreme Court, relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma (supra), has specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163- A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident. 12. Having applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter to the present case, it is held that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not maintainable. Having observed and held as such, the Supreme Court, however, restricted the claimants to entitle personal accident cover strictly as per terms of insurance contract covering borrowed vehicle, which is sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and awarded interest as well. Para 9.8 of the judgment of Ramkhiladi (supra) is relevant for the purpose and is reproduced as under: “9.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, even as per the contract of insurance.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company, as such 6 even if the driver was negligent and he was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner as per Ramkhildali (supra), he is liable to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as such learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law while awarding Rs.4,62,839/- to the claimants as compensation. 14. In the said circumstance, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced from Rs.4,62,839/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.4,62,839/-. It is directed that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Jamshed along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of claim application till its realization. 16. As a consequence thereof, the cross-appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is hereby dismissed. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above and rest thereof shall remain intact. 17. Records of the learned Claims Tribunal concerned along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh