1 2025:CGHC:50047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1002 of 2020  National Insurance Company Limited By Divisional Officer, G.E. Road, Akash Ganga, Supela, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory, Manager, T.P. Hub, Divisional Office, National Insurance Company Limited, Vyapar Vihar Road, Above Canara Bank, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (N.A. No.2) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Indarchand Luniya S/o Late Lalchand Luniya Aged About 49 Years R/o Camp-1, House No.67, Near Teen Darshan Temple, Bhilai Police Station Chhawani Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Premlata Luniya Wd/o Late Indarchand Luniya Aged About 45 Years R/o Camp-1, House No.67, Near Teen Darshan Temple, Bhilai Police Station Chhawani Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Vineet Luniya S/o Indarchand Luniya R/o Camp-1, House No.67, Near Teen Darshan Temple, Bhilai Police Station Chhawani Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Praful Kothari S/o Kiran Kumar Kothari R/o Sangam Chowk, Tulsipur, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate along with Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.09 15:08:39 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 08-10-2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 10.01.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 477/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,60,900/- as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Amit Kumar Luniya and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2) Brief facts of the case, are that on 30.10.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., deceased Amit Kumar Luniya was driving the car bearing registration No. CG-10-K-6100 owned by respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Praful Kothari. While travelling from Rajnandgaon to Bhilai, when the car reached near Urla Road Bypass, Durg, some technical problem arose and car got turtled. Resultantly, Amit Kumar Luniya sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3) Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein filed a claim application under Section 163-A of Act of 1988 pleading that deceased was aged about 25 years and used to earn Rs. 3,300/- per month and under various heads, claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 3 23,41,000/-. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, learned Tribunal passed the award impugned. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Amit Kumar Luniya was driving the vehicle whose registered owner was respondent No. 4, namely, Praful Kothari thus, Amit Kumar Luniya had stepped into the shoes of the owner of vehicle, therefore claim case filed under Section 163A of MV Act, 1988 was not maintainable. He further submits that in the instant case, deceased was neither driver, nor owner of the vehicle, therefore learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while passing the award in favor of claimants. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ningamma and Another Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd.1 and Ramkhiladi and Another Versus United India Insurance Company and Another2. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the learned tribunal has passed just and proper compensation; thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7) In the matter of Ningamma (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that legal representatives of deceased who stepped into shoes of owner of vehicle could not have claimed compensation 1. 2009 (3) T.A.C. (S.C.) 2. 2020 (1) T.A.C. (S.C.) 4 under Section 163-A of the Act. In the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 147 does not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death/ bodily injury to owner of vehicle. It is also held that owner-driver is entitled to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation only. 8) However, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred when the car driven by the deceased which was owned by respondent No. 4 herein got turtled. The car was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) covering the risk of third party for which appropriate premium had been paid. 9) The only question involved in this appeal is, “whether the deceased would fall under the category of third party for claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, as third party risk is covered by the Insurance Policy? 10)“Owner” has been defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 which states as under: “2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;” 11) A careful perusal of the aforesaid definition would show that “owner” would cover the person (i) in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, (ii) if such person is a minor, his/her 5 guardian, and (iii) if the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire- purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the said vehicle under that agreement. Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 creates legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee only for the purpose of the Act of 1988, but not for the purpose of law in general (See: Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and Another3). 12)In the instant case, the appellant (Insurance Company) has solely pleaded that since deceased Amit Kumar Luniya was driving the offending vehicle, he would not come under the category of third party. It was not pleaded by the appellant (Insurance Company) that deceased would fall under the category of ‘owner’ as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that deceased was the registered owner of the vehicle as it is admitted fact that respondent No. 4 herein was the registered owner of the vehicle and it is also not the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that the offending vehicle was subject matter of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation and was in the possession of the deceased under any of the aforesaid agreements. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that deceased was driving the vehicle in the capacity of the ‘owner’. 3 . (2013) 3 SCC 541 6 13)In my considered opinion, though deceased was related to the owner of the vehicle, yet he would fall within the category of third party as he was not the owner and had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and since the vehicle was duly insured covering the risk of third party, the respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants have rightly been held entitled for grant of compensation of Rs. 3,60,900/- under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a