1 2025:CGHC:32741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1532 of 2017 1 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office , 2nd Floor, Jha Niwas, Opposite Hotel Yuvraj Palace, Diversion Road, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Jharkhand. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Jamsida Biwi W/o Late Shri Abdul Hafiz, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mahaveerganj, Thana Ramanujganj, Police Chowki Vijaynagar, Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sahid Raza, S/o Late Shri Abdul Hafiz, Aged About 13 Years Respondent No. 2 Is Minor Are Represented Through Their Next Friend Being Mother Jamsida Biwi, Wife Of Late Shri Abdul Hafiz, R/o Village Mahaveerganj, Thana Ramanujganj, Police Chowki Vijaynagar, Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jahid Raza, S/o Late Shri Abdul Hafiz, Aged About 11 Years Respondent No. 3 Is Minor Are Represented Through Their Next Friend Being Mother Jamsida Biwi, Wife Of Late Shri Abdul Hafiz, R/o Village Mahaveerganj, Thana Ramanujganj, Police Chowki Vijaynagar, Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Aashif Raza, S/o Late Shri Abdul Hafiz, Aged About 4 Years Respondent No. 4 Is Minor Are Represented Through Their Next Friend Being Mother Jamsida Biwi, Wife Of Late Shri Abdul Hafiz, R/o Village Mahaveerganj, Thana Ramanujganj, Police Chowki Vijaynagar, Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kaleem Ansari, S/o Shri Gafar Ansari, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mahaveerganj, Thana Ramanujganj, Police Chowki Vijaynagar, Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Wrongly The Address Was Not Typed In The Award Owner, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 07/2016, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,04,000/- with interest 3 @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the instant appeal arises from a claim case filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against the appellant insurance company and respondent No. 5 seeking compensation for the death of Shri Abdul Hafiz in a road accident that occurred on 19.08.2015. The accident took place when the deceased, while driving an auto borrowed from his father (the registered owner), fell into a nala from a bridge, resulting in his death. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide its award dated 12.07.2017 allowed the claim petition and held that the death of the deceased was caused by the said accident, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,04,000/-, the insurance company failed to prove any breach of the insurance policy, and, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that vehicle was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd and the premium was paid by the driver to the tune of Rs. 50/-. His position becomes like that of vehicle owner and as per the insurance policy Ex.D-2, his risk cover limit is up to Rs.1,00,000. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 4 opposes the same. 5. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellant 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: “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 5 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.” 8. 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 166 of the Act, 1988 is not 6 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. 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. 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-2, 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 appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation up to Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the total awarded compensation by the 7 Claims Tribunal. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent, and the 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 Raghu Jat