-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1928 of 2019 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Chandrakala Dhruv Wd/o Santosh Kumar Dhruv Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Post Office Jangda, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Purani Basti Nevra, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Rajmat Bai Wd/o Vikas Dhruv Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Post Office Jangda, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Purani Basti Nevra, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 - Omprakash S/o Neelkanth Mahilang R/o Village Mudpar, Post Office Jangda, Police Station Bhatapara, (Gramin), District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner), ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 18.09. 2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 30.08.2019 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 511/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Santosh Kumar Dhruv and the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2) Brief facts of the present case, are that on 17/12/2015, deceased Santosh Kumar Dhruv, aged about 39 years, was going along with Ajay alias Vishwanath on motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-22-AC-7578. When they reached near village Dotopar, the motorcycle driven by Santosh Kumar lost balance and they fell on the road and at the same time, unknown vehicle ran over them, and they died on the spot. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle from respondent No.3, therefore, he would come under the category of owner of the vehicle under Section 2(30) of the Act, 1988; thus, the claimants would not be entitled for any compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and the impugned award may be set-aside. 4) Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased being borrower, would fall within the category of 3 rd party, therefore, as per insurance -3- policy, the claims tribunal has rightly granted compensation to the claimants; thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6) It is not in dispute that the accident occurred as the deceased lost balance due to a pothole, the motorcycle was registered with respondent No. 3 herein and it was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) covering the risk of third party for which appropriate premium was paid. 7) The only question involved in this appeal is, “whether the deceased would fall under the category of third party for claiming compensation under Section 163- A of the Act of 1988, as third party risk is covered by the Insurance Policy? 8) “Owner” has been defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 which states as under: “2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;” 9) A careful perusal of the aforesaid definition would show that “owner” would cover the person (i) in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, (ii) if such person is a minor, his/her guardian, and (iii) if the motor vehicle is the -4- subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the said vehicle under that agreement. Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 creates legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee only for the purpose of the Act of 1988, but not for the purpose of law in general (See: Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and Another1). 10) In the instant case, the appellant (Insurance Company) has pleaded that since deceased Santosh Kumar Dhruv was driving the offending vehicle, he would not come under the category of third party. It was not pleaded by the appellant (Insurance Company) that deceased would fall under the category of ‘owner’ as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that deceased was the registered owner of the vehicle as it is admitted fact that respondent No. 3 herein was the registered owner of the vehicle and it is also not the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that the offending vehicle was subject matter of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation and was in the possession of the deceased under any of the aforesaid agreements. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that deceased was driving the vehicle in the capacity of the ‘owner’. 11)In my considered opinion, though deceased was related to the owner of the vehicle, yet he would fall within the category of third party as he was not the owner and had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and since the vehicle was 1 (2013) 3 SCC 541 -5- duly insured covering the risk of third party, the respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants have rightly been held entitled for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim