1 2025:CGHC:41769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 105 of 2021 1 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shriram Chandra Sahu Aged About 45 Years 2 - Smt. Motim Sahu W/o Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 43 Years Both are R/o Village Karamtara, Police Station Jalbandha, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh At Present Resident Of Durgapara, Laxminagar, Supela, Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Sanat Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shriram Chandra Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Karamtara, Police Station Jalbandha, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh At Present Resident Of C/o Near Satyam Automobile, Charoda, District Durg Chhattisgarh ..........(Registered Owner Of Offending Motorcycle No. C. G. 07-Lw-3379) 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Gurunanak Nagar, Station Road, Durg Town And District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/08/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 16:32:32 +0530 2 impugned award dated 18.02.2020, passed in Claim Case No. 113 of 2019, whereby learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants U/s. 163-A of the Act, 1988 holding it to be not maintainable. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that an application U/s. 163-A of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants seeking total compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- on account of death of their younger son Yogesh Kumar Sahu who died in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 18.07.2018, while Yogesh Kumar Sahu was traveling to Bijetala for work assigned by non-applicant No.1, in motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-LW-3379, when he reached near Jalabandha Entry Gate met with an accident with another motor cycle, suffered fatal injuries and later succumbed to those injuries. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased, Yogesh Kumar Sahu, was a 20-year-old able-bodied person who was employed under non-applicant No.2 and was earning a monthly salary of ₹3,300 per month. 3. Non-applicant No.1 remained ex-parte and no reply was filed on his behalf. 4. Non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company filed its reply denying averments made in claim application. It was further pleaded that owner and driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-08-AB- 1883 were not made party to the case, despite they being necessary party. It was further pleaded that motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-LW-3379 was insured by non-applicant No.2 under a Liability 3 Only Policy, for which premium was paid to cover risk to third party. At the time of accident, deceased, Yogesh Kumar, was driving the insured vehicle himself and died in accident. Therefore, deceased Yogesh Kumar driver of vehicle, not being a third party, is not covered under the policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, rejected the claim of claimants holding it to be not maintainable on the ground that claimant failed to array driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle as party. Claims Tribunal further held that deceased did not fall within the definition of a third party as he was driving the motorcycle owned by non-applicant No.1, it was insured under ‘Liability Only Policy’ covering the risk of third party only. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim application filed by claimants, having failed to properly appreciate both documentary and oral evidence brought on record. It is contended that deceased during course of employment under non-applicant No.1 was going for the work assigned by non-applicant No.1 and died due to accident, therefore deceased was a third party. It is contended that for claiming compensation under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, claimants are only required to prove that death or permanent disablement is a result of the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle and it, will also cover those who are themselves driving a vehicle. It is submitted that in an application under Section 163A of the Act, fault of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person is not required to 4 be established. It is further contended that, as the present claim filed U/s. 163-A of the Act of 1988 premised is on no fault liability, it was maintainable against owner and insurer of motor vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and supports the impugned award. It is contended that deceased being driven of vehicle was not a third party. It is contended that impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is upon appreciation of entire documentary and oral evidence on record, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 9. Death of deceased Yogesh Kumar Sahu while he was driving motorcycle No. CG-07-LW-3379, owned by non-applicant No.1 and insured by non-applicant No.2, is not in dispute. It is also undisputed that the offending vehicle involved in the said accident was motorcycle No. CG-08-AB-1883. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the claimants did not file any claim against the driver, owner, or insurer of the other motor cycle. 10. The claim application was filed U/s. 163-A of the Act of 1988 solely against owner and insurer of motorcycle No. CG-07-LW-3379 driven by deceased at the time of accident. Claimants in claim application and evidence have specifically stated that driver of offending motor cycle bearing No.CG.08-AB-1883 namely Jahrit Nishad while driving the said motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle driven by their son and caused accident due to which their son 5 suffered fatal injuries and died. FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against driver of offending other motor cycle for alleged offence U/s.304-A of I.P.C. 11. Perusal of policy (Ex.D-1) would show that insurance company has not taken any separate premium/amount for the risk of any other person, except covering risk of third party, which makes it clear that motor cycle No.C.G.-07-LW-3379 has been insured by non-applicant No.2 only for the third party and in the said policy it is not mentioned that apart from the third party, premium for covering risk of any other person is also paid. 12. Admittedly death of deceased, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sahu, occurred as a result of a road accident involving two vehicles. Accident was caused due to negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration number CG 08 AB 1883, which collided with motorcycle No.CG 07 LW 3379, being driven by deceased at the time of accident. Since Yogesh Kumar Sahu was driving motor cycle No. CG 07 LW 3379 during accident, he cannot be considered as a third party in relation to that vehicle, but he will be third party with respect to vehicle CG 08 AB 1883, but driver, owner or insurer of said vehicle are not party to the proceedings. Accordingly, insurer of vehicle CG 07 LW 3379, i.e., non-applicant No.2, is not liable to pay compensation for death of Yogesh Kumar Sahu, as deceased was not a third party in relation to the insured vehicle. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that deceased, Yogesh Kumar Sahu, cannot be considered a third party in relation to the motorcycle he was riding i.e. 6 CG 07 LW 3379, is based on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. Since no claim was made against owner, driver, or insurer of the offending vehicle/other vehicle, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal have rightly come to the conclusion that claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is not maintainable. 14. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram