1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 258 of 2024 1. Smt. Ritika Lale W/o Late Jitendra Lale Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Santarabadi, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Harshit Lale S/o Late Jitendra Lale Aged About 11 Years No. 2 Is Minor Thourgh Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ritika Lale (Appellant No. 1) R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Santarabadi, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Rajveer Lale S/o Late Jitendra Lale Aged About 6 Years No. 3 Is Minor Thourgh Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ritika Lale (Appellant No. 1) R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Santarabadi, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Nirmala Lale W/o Late Banarshi Lale Aged About 65 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Santarabadi, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Bhanu Yadav S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 49 Years R/o Polsai Para, Ward No. 22, Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Distt. Durg, C.G. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, Aa-7866) 2. Akhilesh Mishra (Now Died) Nill 3. National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Second Floor, Karnataka Bank, Near Tarun Talkies, Arya Nagar, Station Road, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, Aa-7866), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.31 10:30:00 +0530 2 4. Manish Kulkarni S/o Suresh Narayan Kulkarni Aged About 48 Years R/o E W S 989, Aditya Nagar, Near Pani Tanki, Durg , Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Cg07, Aa-7866) ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate alongwith Mr. Bennoon, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30-10-2025 1) By way of this appeal, the appellants/ claimants have challenged the award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 286/2019 dated 28.11.2023 whereby Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application. 2) Facts of the case as per claim application are that on 15.2.2019, the deceased Jitendra Lale was returning from Kawardha along with Praveen Mahule, Prabhat Mahule, Manish Deshmukh and Bhanu Yadav in car bearing registration No. CG-07-AA-7866. An unknown vehicle dashed their car. In the accident, Jitendra Lale sustained grievous injuries and died. It was stated that car was being driven by Bhanu Yadav. The claimants who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased filed claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 99,00,000/- and pleaded that the deceased was aged about 35 years and was working in 3 M/s Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Limited as Business executive earning Rs. 38,000/-. 3) Driver and Owner of the car and Insurance Company filed their reply and denied the averments made in claim application. Driver of the car pleaded that he had valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Owner of the car supported the reply filed by the driver. Insurance Company pleaded that car was dashed by an unknown vehicle and FIR was lodged. It was also pleaded that the police has filed Closure Report No. 12/2019 in the case. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and claim case was dismissed. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that deceased was a pillion rider and the car was being driven by Bhanu Yadav and Praveen Mahule (AW/2) has proved this fact in evidence. She further submits that premium of Rs. 100/- was paid towards personal accident cover for driver-owner covering liability up to Rs. 2,00,000/-. She contends that Claims Tribunal committed an error of law while rejecting the claim application. She prays to allow this appeal. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that FIR was lodged by brother of the deceased who stated that on the fateful day, the deceased was driving the car. They further submit that Insurance Company has filed the statements recorded under Section 161 of 4 Cr.P.C. wherein pillion riders, namely, Prabhat Mahule, Bhanu Yadav and Manish Deshmukh have categorically stated that vehicle was being driven by the deceased. They contend that claimants could not rebut such piece of evidence, therefore Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application. They further contend that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, in the FIR (Ex.D/1), Marg Intimation (Ex.D/2) and statements of Prabhat Mahule, Bhanu Yadav and Manish Deshmukh i.e. Ex. D/5, D/6 and D/7 respectively, it is categorically stated that car was being driven by the deceased, therefore finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard appears to be fair and reasonable. 8) Perusal of the insurance policy would show that premium of Rs. 100/- was paid towards personal accident cover of owner-driver. The limits of liability enumerated in the policy reads as under :- Limits of Liability : Under Section II–1 (i) of the policy–Death of or bodily injury–Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under Section II–1 (ii) of the policy – Damage to Third Party Property–Rs. 7.5 lakhs (as per IMT 20) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event. Cover for Owner-Driver under Section III (CSI) Rs. 200000–Deductible under Section-I : Rs.1000(Compulsory Deductible Rs.1000 Imposed Deductible Rs. 0 and Voluntary Deductible Rs. 0). 5 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another1, while relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2, 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 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 Section163-A was filed against the driver, ownerand/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 1. (2020) 2 SCC 550 2. (2009) 13 SCC 710 6 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 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.” 10) Considering the object of benevolent act of the statute and keeping in mind the principles laid down in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra), it would be appropriate in the interest of justice if the appellants/claimants are granted compensation to the 7 tune of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of claim case till realisation payable by the 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. 11) With the above observation & direction, the appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a