1 / 5 2025:CGHC:33332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1997 of 2019 1. Shankar Ram Bhagat S/o Late Raghunath Ram Bhagat Aged About 56 Years R/o Bakitoli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil And District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Neha Bhagat D/o Shankar Ram Bhagat Aged About 19 Years R/o Bakitoli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil And District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/applicants-claimants versus 1. Vijay Singh R/o Bakitoli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil and District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited Micro Office, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents/non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/07/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 01.10.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 74/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the application filed by applicants-claimants under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 13.10.2016 Satish Bhagat along with his two friends Vivek and Nitesh was returning to his village Bakitoli Jashpur on a motorcycle bearing number CG14-AM-5461 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) after giving examination paper. On the way near Eeb river, Badarchua, accident happened due to which all three suffered injuries. Satish Bhagat was riding motorcycle at the time of accident, he suffered grievous injuries on his head, chest, hand and some internal injuries. He was taken to Holycross Hospital, Kunkuri, from where he was referred to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Ambikapur where taking treatment for 2-3 days, he was again referred to higher centre and was admitted to Medica Hospital, Ranchi, where during course of treatment, he died. 3. Appellants/ applicants-claimants, father and sister of deceased- Satish Bhagat filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 19,41,598/- on the grounds mentioned therein. 4. Respondent No. 1/ Non-applicant No. 1 -owner of the offending vehicle motorcycle filed reply to the application. Apart from accepting undisputed facts pleaded therein, it was further pleaded that deceased himself was negligent in the accident, he took his motorcycle, ie., offending vehicle, for giving some examination paper. The offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No. 2. 5. Respondent No. 2/ Non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that deceased was not owner of the offending vehicle. More persons were travelling on the offending vehicle than its seating capacity, which was driven by deceased, thus, the deceased himself was negligent in the accident. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy condition, risk of owner-driver was only covered and not of other person. 3 / 5 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Satish Bhagat died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident due to his own negligent driving of offending vehicle, owned by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and dismissed the application on the ground that as the deceased was riding the offending vehicle as borrower, as such, he was not covered under the policy conditions as third party. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the entire claim observing that when the deceased was a borrower and stepped into the shoes of owner of the offending vehicle, he cannot be a claimant and owner both at the same time, which is erroneous in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik reported in (2018) 9 SCC 801. 8. Learned counsel for respective respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that copy of insurance policy is not marked exhibit, however it is available on record and the policy is Liability Only Policy and no premium is paid for covering the risk of owner driver under Personal Accident cover and therefore Claims Tribunal justified in dismissing the claim filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. They submit that the decision which is relied upon by the counsel for appellants in the case of Ashalata Bhowmik (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. In that case Hon’ble Supreme Court though held the application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 to be not maintainable, however, considering the risk of owner driver was covered because of the premium paid under the Personal Accident coverage, ordered to pay the amount of 4 / 5 compensation towards contractual liability under insurance policy issued by the company. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased after borrowing the offending vehicle from non-applicant No. 1, met with an accident while riding the vehicle and succumbed to injuries. Claimants who are father and sister of the deceased filed application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 has considered the maintainability of the application filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 by the legal representatives of the deceased who died in the accident while driving the vehicle and held that the deceased being borrower of the vehicle stepped into the shoes of owner and therefore the provision under Section 163-A cannot apply, wherein the owner of the vehicle himself involved in the accident and observed thus: “22. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA. 23. When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion 5 / 5 that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 11. In the case at hand also, deceased was driving the vehicle owned by non- applicant No.1, his status on the date of accident is one of the borrower and therefore as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma (supra), he stepped into the shoes of owner. Claim of the owner cannot be maintained against himself and therefore Claims Tribunal justified in rejecting the claim application filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. 12. The decision in the case of Ashalata Bhowmik (supra) relied upon by the counsel for appellants-claimants is distinguishable to the facts. In the said case deceased was owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and Hon’ble Supreme Court considering that the premium was paid for personal accident coverage, covering risk of owner driver, limited to the extent of ₹ 2 Lakh and therefore has issued a direction to pay ₹ 2 Lakh for indemnifying the personal accident liability. 13. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn