-1- 2025:CGHC:36677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 759 of 2004 Smt. Sharda Tarar, W/o. Somnath Tarar, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Ratnabandha, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Mukesh Tarar, S/o. Late Somnath Tarar, Aged about 31 years, R/o. Ratnabandha, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, through : Divisonal Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07.2025 1) This appeal is directed against the award dated 12.02.2004 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund -2- (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 60/2002, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant - Smt. Sharda Tarar was partly allowed, and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded for the death of her husband Shri Somnath Tarar, in a motor accident. 2) The brief facts of the present case are that on 18.10.2002, the deceased Somnath Tarar was driving a Maruti Car bearing registration No. CG-04/B/1542, owned by respondent No.1/his son and was going towards Raigarh via Raipur. Near Village Kashibhra, an unknown truck, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the Maruti Car, as a result of which, the deceased Somnath Tarar suffered grievous injuries. He was hospitalised but succumbed to the injuries during the course of the treatment. An FIR was registered at Police Station Pithora (Crime No. 249/2002), and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3) It was pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 54 years old, working as a Sub-Engineer in the Public Works Department, and drawing a salary of Rs. 13,993/- per month. It was also stated that he was in line for promotion to the post of SDO. 4) The appellant, being the widow of the deceased, claimed a total compensation of Rs. 20,57,496/- under various heads. 5) Respondent No.2/the Insurance Company denied the claim and contended that the cause of the death of the deceased was a heart attack. It was also denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 13,993/- per month. 6) The learned Tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the -3- accident that occurred on 18.10.2002. It was further held that the deceased possessed a valid driving license at the time of the accident and was driving the vehicle owned by his son. However, the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation, which is now under challenge in the present appeal. 7) The appellant has assailed the award on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of DW-1 B.C. Shutar and documentary evidence (Ex. D-2 and D-3). It is contended that the Tribunal erred in interpreting the term "driver" under the Motor Vehicles Act and ignored the fact that the deceased was the only earning member in the family. The meager compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- is inadequate and not in accordance with settled principles of law. 8) During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered with the decision rendered in MAC No. 971/2015 (Smt. Meena Bai Sen & Anr. v. Tulsiram Sen & Anr.) decided on 27.09.2022, wherein similar facts and legal issues were involved. 9) In the matter of Smt. Meena Bai Sen (supra), the Coordinate Bench has held that in order to make out a case under Section 163 (A) the claimant has to be a third party or a third person unrelated to the owner in any manner, but in the present case also, the respondent No.1 owner of the Maruti Car bearing Registration No. CG-04-B-1542 and is son of deceased; thus, the practical purposes the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner and thereby he was driving the vehicle in the capacity of owner. -4- 10) In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position as laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Smt. Meena Bai Sen (supra), it is evident that when the deceased was driving the vehicle owned by his son (respondent No.1), he effectively stepped into the shoes of the owner, and as such, he cannot be considered a "third party" for the purposes of claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the claim filed by the appellant does not fall within the ambit of the said provision, and the award passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference of this Court. 11) Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM