1 2025:CGHC:35446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1541 of 2018 1 - Santram S/o Hagara Ram Kewat Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Hilbai W/o Santram Kewat Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Budhara Bai W/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Vikash S/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 8 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Budhara Bai W/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Aakash S/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 3 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Budhara Bai W/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 About 26 Years, R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Malti D/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Budhara Bai W/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 - Kamini D/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Budhara Bai W/o Late Devlal Kewat Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 8 - Rajkumar S/o Santram Kewat Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kapadah Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Baburam Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kapadah Post Office Bangala Thana And Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.............Owner, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Sir Branch Manager First Floor Galaxy Heights Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank Behind Of Sanjay Apartment Byapar Vihar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.............Insurer, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 3 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shalani Jangde, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Mr. P.R. Patanker and Mr. A. . K. Yadav, Advocates for their respective respondents. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 03.05.2017 passed by Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Fast Track Kabirdham Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) in Claim Case No.82/2015, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are thatThe appellants/claimants, comprising the widow, parents, two minor sons, and two minor daughters of the deceased, Dev Lal Kewat, filed an application under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated that on 03/07/2012, at approximately 4:00 A.M., the deceased, Dev Lal Kewat, was driving the offending vehicle, a tractor bearing registration No. C.G.10/D/7570. The deceased was proceeding from Pandatarai towards his village and, upon reaching Pandariya Lormi Marg road, the tractor suddenly turned turtle, resulting in a fatal accident. Dev Lal Kewat succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The deceased was driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle. The appellants therefore contend that Respondent No.1, the owner of the tractor, and Respondent No.2, the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. The appellants respectfully submit that the learned Claims Tribunal committed serious legal errors by disbelieving the claimants’ witnesses and awarding a mere Rs. 50,000/- as compensation 4 under the driver’s risk cover, without properly apportioning liability between the insurer and the owner. The Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s annual income at Rs. 36,000/- instead of Rs. 36,000/- per annum (Rs. 3,000/- per month) with applicable future prospects, as supported by binding precedents. Furthermore, it failed to deduct one-third towards the deceased’s personal expenses despite eight dependents, including the widow, minor children, and parents. The Tribunal also neglected to compute the total compensation adequately, awarded only a lump sum amount, and granted interest at 6% instead of the legally mandated 9% per annum. The findings are contrary to the evidence on record, warranting a just enhancement of the compensation. Additional grounds may be urged at the time of argument. 4. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference. 5. I Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the deceased being the driver of the vehicle in question does not fall in the category of a third party, law on this point is already settled by the 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, 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 wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. Para 9.4 is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced as under: 5 “9.4 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Nigamma. 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 Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma 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.” 7. 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 Act, 1988 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 lakh and awarded interest as well. 6 Para 9.8 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 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the accident occurred when the motorcycle driven by the deceased and met accident with unknown vehicle. The said motorcycle was insured with Respondent No.4. The insurance policy in respect of the motorcycle has been brought on record marked as Ex.D1. On perusal of Ex.D-1, it appears that Rs.50 was received by the insurance company to cover the risk of personal accident to the owner-driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. Since the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner, therefore, he was not a third party to the vehicle in question. 9. Hence, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters, the argument/ground raised by the Insurance Company is accepted. If the liability of the Insurance Company arises, it will be limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. Even otherwise, as per insurance policy Ex.D-1, the insurance company will cover the risk of personal accident to the owner-driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. 10. In that view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is partly allowed. It is directed that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The impugned award 7 stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions including interest rate shall remain intact. 11. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh/Saxena