1 2025:CGHC:51203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 755 of 2019 1 - Manoj Kumar Anwani S/o Late Niyamal Anwani, Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 22/992 Mandi Get Road Thakur Gali, Near - Devdutt Verma Kirana Storse Pandaritarai Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgasrh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Anita Anwani W/o Manoj Kumar Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 22/992 Mandi Get Road Thakur Gali, Near - Devdutt Verma Kirana Storse Pandaritarai Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgasrh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Girish Anwani S/o Manoj Kumar Anwani Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 22/992 Mandi Get Road Thakur Gali, Near - Devdutt Verma Kirana Storse Pandaritarai Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgasrh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Karishma Anwani D/o Manoj Kumar Anwani, Aged About 20 Years R/o House No. 22/992 Mandi Get Road Thakur Gali, Near - Devdutt Verma Kirana Storse Pandaritarai Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgasrh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Deepak Kumar Raolani S/o Shri Pyare Lal Raolani, House No. 114 Set Joseph Colony Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Through - Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. - 2 Chawla Complex Sai Nagar Devendra Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIRMALA RAO 2 For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Shri A.L. Singraul, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.10.2025 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20.2.2019, passed in Claim Case No.172 of 2016 by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur, District Raipur, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition preferred by the appellants on the ground that the claim application would not be maintainable by the legal representatives of tort-feasor. 2. The facts of the present case are that the appellants/ claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inter alia, on the ground that deceased Chandresh Kumar Anwani alongwith Aman Raolani, Sonu Raolani and Rahul Raolani were going to Nagpur from Raipur in a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.C.G. 04/KU/ 2031, which was being driven by the deceased himself. At about 2:30 am, due to a tyre burst, the driver lost control over the vehicle and collided with a tree. Consequently, the occupants sustained injuries. Chandresh Kumar Anwani also sustained injuries and died during the course of the day. 3. The claimants, who are father, mother and brothers of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking 3 compensation to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/-. The vehicle was registered in the name of Respondent No.1 – Deepak Kumar Raolani and was insured with the Insurance Company. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. A specific plea was taken that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and that the driver did not possess a valid driving license. Learned Tribunal framed issues; both the parties led their evidence and thereafter, the learned Tribunal passed an award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the cause of the accident was a tyre burst and this fact has been proved by the witnesses through evidence before the learned Tribunal. She would contend that the father of the deceased Manoj Kumar Anwani (AW-1) categorically stated that on account of a tyre burst, the driver of the vehicle lost control and hit a tree and that the deceased died while being taken to the hospital. Sonu Ahuja (AW-2), one of the occupants of the car also stated that the car hit a tree due to a tyre burst, resulting in injuries to all occupants. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal ignored this evidence and concluded that the claim petition was not maintainable since it had been preferred by the legal representatives of a tort-feasor. She would contend that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to well-settled principles of law, and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. She would submit that the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased on 4.8.2015 itself wherein it was stated that the car hit against a tree and 4 there was no mention with regard to a tyre burst. She would submit that in the merg intimation lodged by Manoj Anwani, there was no mention of a tyre burst. She would contend that at the time of filing of claim application, the claimants made a new story. She would contend that the learned Tribunal has considered all the facts and thereafter, dismissed the claim application. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the vehicle car was being driven by deceased – Chandresh Anwani. The said car hit a tree, causing grievous injuries to its occupants. On 4.8.2015 itself, an FIR was lodged by Manoj Anwani, father of the deceased at police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon, wherein, he stated that he reached the accident site after being informed by the police. He further stated that the vehicle was being driven by Chandresh Anwani and due to rash and negligent driving, the car collided with a tree, causing injuries. 8. The FIR was lodged at 8:15 hours on 4.8.2015, whereas the time of the accident was 2:30 hours on the same day. A merg intimation was lodged by father of the deceased Manoj Anwani on 4.8.2015 at about 8:05 hours where it was informed that due to rash and negligent driving of Chandresh Anwani, the car hit a tree. The claim application was filed by the claimants on 23.2.2016, approximately six months after the incident and for the first time, it was alleged that the accident occurred due to a tyre burst. Although the claimants and their witnesses deposed that the cause of the accident was a tyre burst, they did not examine any mechanic or other expert to prove this fact. 5 9. In the matter of G. Nagarathna vs. G. Manjunatha, reported in 2024 Supreme (Kar) 1260, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a miscellaneous appeal preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased inter alia on the ground that a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of a tort-feasor is not maintainable. The Court also held that only loss of consortium can be granted in such cases. In the present case, even in their evidence, the claimants’ witnesses failed to specify which tyre had burst. 10. In G. Nagarathna (supra), paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 are reproduced herein below: “11. The wife, son and parents of deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha filed claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of Sri.N.S.Ravisha in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.06.2014. The averments in the claim petition are that the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha drove Fiat Linea car bearing registration No.KA-06 N-5997 in high speed, rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, lost control over the same, due to which the car toppled on the road leading to his death. The wife of the deceased i.e. claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that accident occurred due to tyre burst. The said portion of the evidence is contrary to her own pleading. Hence, such evidence is unacceptable. The pleading and evidence available on record indicate that the claimants have taken clear stand before the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha. 12. Admittedly, deceased had borrowed the said car from respondent No.1 the registered owner which was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. As on the date of the 6 accident the insurance was in force. Immediately after the accident Smt.Shobharani gave information about the accident to the Arasikere Rural police on 18.06.2014 at 11 a.m. The jurisdictional police, based on the information registered the FIR in Crime No.149/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC against deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha. The police, on investigation filed abated charge sheet against him. Admittedly, the claimants have not challenged the charge sheet filed against the deceased. The claimants have made an attempt to amend the claim petition by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to amend the claim petition by bringing the new plea i.e. "the driver side tyre had burst as a result of which, the car tilted, the driver lost control and the accident has caused". 14. Insofar as entitlement of compensation and maintaining the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Ningamma's, case referred to supra has clearly held that when an application for claim of compensation is made under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award. It has further observed that when such claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving and it would also be necessary to prove that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the Insurance Company liable to make payment to the legal heirs. In the instant case, admittedly the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being self tort-feasor, the legal heirs cannot claim any compensation for his death, otherwise it would amount to a person who committed breach getting the compensation for his own wrongs. In the instant case, the deceased has borrowed the vehicle in question from respondent No.1, hence, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle 7 and for the negligence of the owner or borrower of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to indemnify for such wrongs. Our view gains support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu B.Mehta and another, referred to supra. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company referred to supra also support our view with regard to entitlement of compensation by the heirs of the deceased when the deceased himself is tort-feasor.” 11. The judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed on 2.7.2025. 12. Taking into consideration the fact that the driver of the vehicle i.e. the deceased himself, was a tort-feasor, the legal heirs are not entitled to claim any compensation for his death. Otherwise, it would amount to a person who committed a breach receiving compensation for his own wrongful act. Further, the claimants failed to prove negligence, which is a prerequisite to maintain an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi