1 2025:CGHC:51202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1939 of 2019  Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, Shop No. 3, I I Floor, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Appellant ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Ashwani Negi W/o Dinesh Negi Aged About 42 Years R/o Junior M I G 322, Sector 1, D. D. Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Rohini Negi D/o Dinesh Negi Aged About 20 Years R/o Junior M I G 322, Sector 1, D. D. Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Pushpendra Singh Parihar, S/o R. B. S. Parihar Aged About 50 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Near Barud Kothri, Santoshi Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 &2 / Claimants : Ms. Swati Saraf, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14-10-2025 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the award passed by learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 180/2018 dated 29.8.2019 whereby Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favor of claimants on account of Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.15 15:31:26 +0530 2 death of Gopal Krishna Negi. 2. Facts of the present case are that on 8.2.2014, deceased Gopal Krishna Negi was travelling along with his friend in SANTRO Car bearing registration No. CG-04-DL-1888 from Raipur to Jagdalpur. The car was owned by respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Pushpendra Singh Parihar. When they reached near Village Sarbeda, a cattle came in front and the driver lost control and hit a tree. In the accident, deceased Gopal Krishna Negi sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants, who are mother and sister of the deceased, moved claim application and pleaded that the deceased was aged about 24 years and was a contractor. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and Claims Tribunal passed the award. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased was driving the car, whose registered owner was respondent No. 3 herein, thus the deceased 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 according to the Insurance policy, premium of Rs. 100/- has been taken for covering risk towards personal accident of the owner-cum-driver but in the instant case, deceased was neither driver, nor owner of the vehicle, therefore Claims Tribunal committed error of law while passing the award in favor of claimants. He prays to allow the appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the SANTRO car bearing registration No. CG-04-DL-1888 3 was being driven by deceased Gopal Krishna Negi on 8.2.2014. The said vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 3. A cattle suddenly came on the road, driver lost control and hit a tree. Resultantly, Gopal Krishna Negi succumbed to injuries. 7. Perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has passed the award in light of gazette notification dated 22.5.2018 whereby the Central Government has made amendment to the Second Schedule of MV Act, 1988 and Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988 has been amended to the effect that claimants of third party fatal accidents/ injury claim cases have been held entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in death case and Rs. 25,000/- in injury case. 8. However, it is not in dispute that when the accident occurred the vehicle was being driven by the deceased. The vehicle was owned by Pushpendra Singh Parihar and it 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 these appeals 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 4 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 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 Another1). 12. In the instant case, the appellant (Insurance Company) has solely pleaded that since the deceased 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 Jeevdhan Dewangan 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’. 1. (2013) 3 SCC 541 5 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 claimants have rightly been held entitled for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. 14. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a