1 2025:CGHC:45464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 210 of 2019 1 - ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manger Vaniya Bhawan Ground Floor ,devendra Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Dropadi Bai W/o Late Gaindram Pal Aged About 42 Years R/ovillage Dhaneli (Sankra) District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Neelam Pal W/o Jayant Kumar Pal Aged About 30 Years D/o Late Gaindram Pal ,r/o F-8, T.V. Tower Shriram Nagar Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Takeshwar Pal S/o Late Gaindram Pal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Dhaneli (Sankra) District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents {Cause tittle, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pushpendra Patel, Advocate For Res. No. 3 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board 04/09/2025 1. Heard on I. A. No. 01/2019, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2 2. On due consideration and for the reason mentioned in the said application, the same is allowed and delay of 178 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter heard finally. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth “MV Act”) has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company assailing legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned award dated 28.04.2018 passed by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) {for short, ‘Claims Tribunal’ } in Claim Case No. 52 of 2013. 5. By the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,16,671/- as compensation alongwith interest on account of death of deceased Gandlal Pal in a motor accident that occurred on 15.11.2012 while riding motorcycle, owned by his son respondent No. 3, met with an accident and during course of treatment he died on 16.11.2012. Learned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company, as it could not establish the violation of policy condition, 6. Respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants filed an application under Section 163-A of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/- on account of death of deceased- Gandram Pal in an accident that occurred on 15.11.2012 involving the motorcycle Hero Honda Glamour bearing engine No. JA06ELCCGL2661, frame No. MBLJACCGL24699 (in short offending vehicle). As per pleading of the claim application, the deceased Gandram Paul was driving the offending vehicle with moderate speed and near Durga Casting company, oil was filled at the road and as a result he got imbalanced and fell down resulting into severe injuries and 3 succumbed to these injuries on 16.11.2012 in the hospital during treatment. A report was lodged at Police Station Dharseeva District Raipur upon which an offence was registered under Section 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was 48 years and earning Rs. 40,000/- per months by working as a driver. The claim application was resisted by respondent No. 3/owner of the offending vehicle inter alia pleading in its written statement that the deceased, who was his father, took the motorcycle and while riding the same, he fell down on the road, resulting into his death. He has valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the same was insured with the Insurance Company and, thus, the aforesaid amount of compensation has been claimed. 7. Appellant/insurance company has filed its written statement denying the substantive pleading made in the claim application stating that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and in pursuance therefore, crime was also registered against him. Further, he did not have valid & effective driving licence, and there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 8. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as 8 issues and decided the same in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 / claimants and against the Insurance Company holding it liable to pay compensation to the claimants, which led to filing instant appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently argued that claim application itself is not maintainable, as the deceased was the father of the owner of the offending vehicle and he was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its real owner (his son), therefore, 4 he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. Therefore, the claimant, not being a third party, claim petition itself was not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi1 and Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited2 so far as the appellant is concerned. However, as the insurance company has undertaken the risk of owner-cum-driver to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- by taking extra premium of Rs. 50/- and by entering into special contract therefor, therefore, at the most, the appellant/insurance company is liable for payment of compensation only to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- but the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 4,16,671/- as compensation against the appellant. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award and would submit in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly awarded aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimants which does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 12. The Supreme Court in case of Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited3 has observed in para 21 & 22 as under : “21. In our considered opinion, the ratio of decision of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be an 1 2008 (5) SCC - 736 2 2009 (13) SCC-710 3 2009 (13) SCC-710 5 employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the Act hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 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 of the MV Act. But 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 MV Act. 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.” 13. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased was the father of the owner of the offending vehicle. He himself was driving the vehicle and no other vehicle was involved in the said accident. Therefore, in light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Niggmma (Supra) and Rajni Devi (Supra), the compensation of Rs. 4,16,671/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, being unsustainable, is liable to be set aside. However, perusal of the policy, it is observed that Rs. 50/- was charged for covering the risk of owner and driver and as the deceased is steps into the shoes of 6 the owner, therefore, in light of the judgment of Ramkhiladi (Supra), compensation of Rs. 1 lacs would be appropriate alongwith 6% interest. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed in part. The award is modified to the extent that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation to the claimant only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and not the amount as awarded by the Tribunal. The above amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of appeal. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 15. The appellant / Insurance Company is granted two months’ time for payment of above compensation to the claimants after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited by the appellant/insurance company. 16. It is made clear that if an amount more than 1 lacs rupees is deposited by the Insurance Company, the same may be recoverable from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand (s) disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.23 18:22:22 +0530