1 2025:CGHC:12298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 442 of 2017 Nitesh Thakkar S/o Late Jagdish Thakkar, Aged About 36 Years R/o Through Jala Ram Patra Bhandar Main Road Gariyabandh Tahsil And Distt. Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/claimant versus 1 - Smt. Bhanumati Thakkar W/o Late Jagdish Thakkar, R/o Through Jala Ram Patra Bhandar Main Road Gariyabandh Tahsil And Distt. Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver 2 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, Branch Office, Amar Complex Jeevan Bima Marg Raipur Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Policy No. 2701013114 P. 102028440 Date Of Period 24/06/2014 To 23/06/2015 Up To Date ..............Insurer, ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. AL Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board 12/03/2025 The appellant/claimant in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 is challenging the award dated 7.1.2017 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.60/2015 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,500/- to the claimant fastening liability jointly and severally on the insurance company and owner of the vehicle. 02. The claimant filed an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act of 1988") with the averments that on 18.9.2014 his elder brother Hitesh Thakkar was going from Raipur to Gariyabandh by driving vehicle Maruti Swift bearing registration No. CG 04 HC 1350. However, on the way the vehicle got uncontrollable and dashed against a tree which resulted in severe injuries on his head, chest and leg and led to his unfortunate death on 28.9.2014 during treatment in Balaji Hospital. At the time of accident, the vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. The deceased was a healthy person of 38 years and working as driver of respondent No.1, thereby earning Rs.3,200/- pm as also getting allowance @ Rs.200/- per day in case of going out of the city. The claimant was fully dependent upon his income, hence he 3 claimed a total compensation of Rs.15.50 lacs under various heads with 18% pa interest. 03. Respondent No.1 in her written statement stated that she is mother of the deceased and owner of the vehicle Maruti Swift bearing No. CG 04 HC 1350. She admitted that the deceased was driver of the said vehicle and was being paid Rs.3,200/- pm as also allowance @ Rs.200/- per day. She stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company, there was no breach of policy conditions and as such, it is the insurance company which is liable for payment of entire compensation. 04. Respondent No.2/insurance company in its written statement denied its liability on the ground that the accident occurred solely on account of negligence of the deceased. This apart, on the date of accident the deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The claimant was never dependent upon the deceased. Moreover, the deceased being son of the registered owner of the vehicle, stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such, the application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 is not maintainable. 05. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence this appeal by the claimant. 4 06. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the impugned award runs contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Learned Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased as Rs.3200/- per month as a driver and awarded compensation accordingly with interest @ 9% pm whereas only Rs.4500/- has been awarded to the claimant without any interest. Lastly he submits that as per insurance policy, Rs.50/- was charged for coverage of owner and driver, therefore, at least a sum of Rs.1 lac should have been awarded to the claimant. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi and others, (2008) 5 SCC 736 and the order dated 28.11.2023 of this Court in MAC No.783/2017 in the matter of Laxmin Bai and others Vs. Branch Manager, Iffco Tokiyoa General Insurance Co. Ltd. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance company strongly opposes the contention of the claimant and submits that the claimant was not dependent upon the deceased and respondent No.1/owner is mother of the deceased, as such the deceased having entered the shoes of the owner, the application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 filed by the claimant is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 27.9.2022 of this Court in MAC No.971/2015 in the matter of Smt. Meena Bai Sen and 5 another Vs. Tulsiram Sen and another. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. Respondent No.2/insurance company has filed certified copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle Maruti Swift bearing registration No. CG 04 HC 1350. As per this policy, the vehicle was insured from 24.6.2014 to 23.6.2015. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 18.9.2014 and as such, on the date of accident the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2/insurance company. In this policy, under the schedule of premium, a premium of Rs.50/- was taken by the insurance company for covering the risk of the owner and driver. 10. While dealing with the similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajni Devi (supra) held in paras 7, 11 & 12 as under: "7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. The Tribunal, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in taking the view that while determining the amount of compensation, the only factor which would be relevant would be merely the use of the motor vehicle. 6 11. The liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. 12. According to the terms of contract of insurance, the liability of the Insurance Company was confined to Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only). It was liable to the said extent and not any sum exceeding the said amount." 11. This Court in the matter of Laxmin Bai and others (supra) observed in para 5 as under: "5. Mr. Patankar supports the award and submits that no other vehicles involved in the case, therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Nigamma and Another (supra), the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference. However, admittedly Rs. 50/- was charged by the insurance company covering the risk of owner-driver to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- therefore in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Khiladi Vs. The United Insurance company Limited (2020) 2 SCC 550, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation the appellants/claimants to be paid by the respondent/insurance company withing a period 60 days with 6% interest from the date of claim application till its actual payment." 12. In light of above decisions, it is clear that in the present case also 7 premium of Rs.50/- was charged by the insurance company covering the risk of owner-driver to the tune of Rs.1 lac. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation to the claimant which shall be payable by the insurance company within a period of 60 days from today. The amount already paid by the insurance company shall be adjusted accordingly. 13. The appeal thus stands allowed with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN