[2025:RJ-JP:6535] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5/2025 1. Kailashi W/o Shankarlal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Village Devri, Post Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk (Raj.). 2. Shanarlal S/o Devlilal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Devri, Post Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk (Raj.). 3. Sarla Choudhary W/o Rajkumar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Devri, Post Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Second Bhagwati Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur 2. Budhi Prakash S/o Radha Kishan, Resident Of A-44, Ashok Nagar, Purani Chungi, Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj.) (Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. RJ-14-JT-6982). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 14/02/2025 1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants aggrieved from dismissal of claim petition No.346/2021 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk on 31.07.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Raj Kumar @ Raju was driving a motorcycle No. RJ-14-JT-6982 and the same was hit by unknown vehicle resulted into death of Raj [2025:RJ-JP:6535] (2 of 3) [CMA-5/2025] Kumar @ Raju. He submits that the appellants have filed claim petition against owner and Insurance Company of vehicle under Section 163A of Act of 1988, wherein the Tribunal was required to pass an award only on the basis of involvement of vehicle, but the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that deceased was in shoe of owner. He submits that the claimants are legal heirs of deceased and entitled for compensation under Section 163A of Act of 1988. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material placed on record. 4. A perusal of admitted facts indicates that deceased Raj Kumar @ Raju was himself driving the motorcycle when allegedly hit by another vehicle. The facts further indicated that the deceased, borrowed of motorcycle from owner and a claim petition was filed against registered owner and Insurance Company of motorcycle. 5. Here in this case, the deceased was himself driving the vehicle and the Tribunal while relying upon judgment of Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Company and Anr. : AIR 2020 SC 527, has opined that as per policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment when deceased himself was a driver of motorcycle. 6. In case of Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Company and Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, there is no need for claimants to plead or establish negligence in respect of death of the person on basis of which [2025:RJ-JP:6535] (3 of 3) [CMA-5/2025] claim petition was filed. The deceased has to be a third party and a petition cannot be maintained under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 against owner / insurer of the vehicle which was borrowed by him as he is in shoe of owner. 7. In view of aforesaid, the claim petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal and there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of dismissal passed by the Tribunal. There is no ground to admit the appeal. 8. However, the claimants are at liberty to raise the issue of compensation under the policy, if they have any ground to procure claim. 9. In view of aforesaid, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/5