1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 188 of 2024 1 - Wahida Begam, W/o Late Md Hanif Khan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Hardi, Thana- Hirri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anish Khan, S/o Late Md. Hanif Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Hardi, Thana- Hirri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1- Ravishankar Tiwari, S/o Durga Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Munsi Smile Ward, Bhatapara, Post/tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2- Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, G.E. Road, Sky Delar Ke Bagal Me Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 27/10/2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award/order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Claim Case No. 198/2020, by learned VIIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 2. Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 03.12.2019, the deceased, Nafish Khan, who was traveling on motorcycle (CG-22-P-1805) towards Balodabazar, met with an accident with an unknown motorcycle near Over Bridge. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. He would further submit that the claimants, who are mother and brother of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation to the tune of 18,14,000/- ₹ with interest. He would also contend that the vehicle (CG-22-P-1805) was insured with respondent No.2/the insurance company. The learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased, Nafish Khan, stepped into the shoes of owner of the vehicle, and he would not be deemed a third party, therefore, he could not be treated as a recipient of compensation. He would submit that a premium of 315 was paid under the policy to cover personal accident ₹ benefits for the owner/driver of the vehicle; thus, the insurance company is liable to make payment of 1,50,000/- in accordance with ₹ the terms of the insurance policy. He has placed reliance on the 3 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pravesh Sahu, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that as the deceased stepped into owner of the vehicle, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed on file. 5. Now, I shall deal with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for respondent that the deceased stepped into the show of owner of the vehicle in question does not fall under the category of third party. Law on this point is already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra), wherein the Hon’ble 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. The relevant paras are 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 4 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 that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the 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 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.” “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 of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death 5 and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court in 10-05- 2018 i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the of the owner of the vehicle.” 6. Now, the question which falls for consideration is whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. I am of the considered opinion that they would certainly be entitled to compensation of Rs.1.50 lakh, while taking into account the terms of contract of insurance. The Insurance Policy has been filed on record and on perusal of the same, it appears that Rs.315/- was paid to the insurance company towards personal accident (PA) for owner/driver and it could also be seen in that document that liability of the insurer has been fixed at Rs.1,50,000/-. 7. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2019 and on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured and the period of insurance policy was from 28.03.2019 till midnight of 27.03.2024, and premium of Rs.315/- was obtained by it, which is also not disputed by the insurer, and also considering the object of benevolent act of the statute and keeping in mind the principles laid down in the case of 6 Ramkhiladi (supra), it would be appropriate in the interest of justice if the appellants/claimants are granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till realisation payable by respondent/insurance company, which is just and proper compensation. It is, therefore, directed that the insurance company shall satisfy the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants. 8. With the above observation & direction, the appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim