1 2025:CGHC:49770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 743 of 2021  The New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Accidental Vehicle), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus  Jeevdhan Dewangan S/o Baldev Dewangan, Aged About 55 Years Resident Amapara, Bald, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH MAC No. 742 of 2021  The New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Accidental Vehicle), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Devshree W/o Late Amit Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 28 Years R/o Amapara, Balod, District - Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Anita Bai W/o Jeevdhan Dewangan Aged About 50 Years R/o Amapara, Balod, District - Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Jeevdhan Dewangan S/o Baldev Dewangan, Aged About 55 Years R/o Amapara, Balod, District - Balod Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Accidental Vehicle), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.09 16:57:14 +0530 2 For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/ Claimants : Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 7-10-2025 1. In MAC No. 743 of 2021, appellant has assailed the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod in Claim Case No. 03/2019 dated 30.06.2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in favor of claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in road accident. In MAC No. 742 of 2021, appellant has assailed the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod in Claim Case No. 01/2019 dated 30.06.2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs in favor of claimants on account of death of Amit Kumar Dewangan in road accident. 2. Facts of the present cases are that on 26.06.2018, deceased Amit Kumar Dewangan and Jeevdhan Dewangan were travelling in OMNI car bearing registration No. CG-05-F-1055 which was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. Deceased Amit Kumar Dewangan was driving the vehicle and due to tire-burst, he lost control; the side doors swung open and both of them, fell from the vehicle. As a result, Amit Kumar Dewangan suffered 3 severe injury over head and other parts of body whereas Jeevdhan Dewangan suffered grievous injuries over head, hands, legs and other parts of body. Both were taken to hospital and during course of treatment, Amit Kumar Dewangan died. 3. Widow and mother of Amit Kumar Dewangan filed claim case under Section 163A of MV Act, 1988 wherein they pleaded that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 39,600/- per annum. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 8,60,000/- with interest. Injured Jeevdhan filed claim case under Section 163A of MV Act, 1988 wherein he pleaded that at the time of accident, his age was 55 years and he sustained grievous injuries and claimed a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. 4. Insurance Company filed reply and with respect to Claim Case No. 01/2019, took a specific plea that Jeevdhan was the registered owner of the OMNI car which was being driven by deceased Amit Kumar Dewangan himself, thus, he had stepped in the shoes of the owner of vehicle, therefore claim case under Section 163A of MV Act, 1988 against the owner and Insurance Company was not maintainable. Likewise, in Claim Case No. 03/2019, similar defense was taken by the Insurance Company. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and learned Claims Tribunal passed respective awards. 5. In Claim Case No. 01/2019, learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favor of claimants according 4 to the gazette notification dated 22.5.2018 whereby the Central Government has made amendment to the Second Schedule of MV Act, 1988. In Claim Case No. 03/2019, learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- on account of injuries sustained by Jeevdhan. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Amit Kumar Dewangan was the son of Jeevdhan, who was the registered owner of vehicle and thus, Amit Kumar Dewangan 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. 50/- has been taken for the driver but 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 contends that deceased Amit Kumar Dewangan was not having valid and effective driving license and the claimants failed to prove the contrary, therefore they are not entitled for any compensation. 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. He prays to allow both the appeals. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1. 2009 (3) T.A.C. (S.C.) 2. 2020 (1) T.A.C. (S.C.) 5 respondents-claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He further submits that burden was on the Insurance Company to prove that driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, the OMNI car bearing registration No. CG-05-F-1055 was being driven by deceased Amit Kumar Dewangan on 26.6.2018. The said vehicle was registered in the name of Jeevdhan, father of deceased who was also travelling in the said vehicle. On account of tire-burst, driver lost control; the side doors swung open and both of them, fell from the rolling vehicle. Resultantly, Amit Kumar Dewangan succumbed to injuries and Jeevdhan suffered grievous injuries. 10. 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 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. 11. However, it is not in dispute that when the accident occurred the vehicle was being driven by the deceased. The vehicle was owned by Jeevdhan Dewangan and it was duly insured with the 6 appellant (Insurance Company) covering the risk of third party for which appropriate premium had been paid. 12. 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? 13. “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;” 14. 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 7 (See:Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and Another3). 15. In the instant case, the appellant (Insurance Company) has solely pleaded that since deceased Amit Kumar Dewangan 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’. 16. With regard to the contention made by Mr. Agrawal to the effect that deceased was not having valid and effective driving license, therefore, claimants are not entitled for any compensation, Insurance Company failed to prove this fact by leading evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. (2013) 3 SCC 541 8 and others4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in para 6 held as under :- “6. As per the decision in Swaran Singh case, onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver … does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”. In view of the aforementioned judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, contention made by Mr. Agrawal with regard to driving license cannot be accepted. 17. 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. 18. Perusal of the respective awards would show that learned Claims Tribunal has passed the awards in light of gazette notification 4. (2018) 9 SCC 650 9 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. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal has passed the respective awards according to the said notification. In the instant case, Insurance Company has neither pleaded not argued that notification dated 25.5.2018 was not applicable in the cases at hand. Even the said notification has not been placed on record. Also, when the Claims Tribunal has passed the respective awards purely on the basis of the notification dated 25.5.2018, Insurance Company was under obligation to impugn the respective awards on the ground that said notification would not attract in these cases. 20. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned awards. Accordingly, these appeals, being devoid of merits, are 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