1 2025:CGHC:20694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1401 of 2018 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Divisional Office Bramh Road Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Through Authorised Signatory United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Jata Singh S/o Doman Singh aged about 80 years, Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sumitra Devi W/o Jata Singh Aged About 60 Years Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anita Singh W/o Late Dilip Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Annapurna Singh D/o Late Dilip Singh Aged About 13 Years Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi), Through her Guardian Mother Anita Singh W/o Late Dilip Singh (R-3) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.05.07 17:50:32 +0530 2 5 - Minor Rani Singh D/o Late Dilip Singh aged about 10 years, Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi), Through her Guardian Mother Anita Singh W/o Late Dilip Singh (R-3) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Minor Khushi Kumari Singh D/o Late Dilip Singh Aged About 9 Years, Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi), Through her Guardian Mother Anita Singh W/o Late Dilip Singh (R-3) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Minor Lachhmi Kumari Singh D/o Late Dilip Singh Aged About 6 Years Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi), Through her Guardian Mother Anita Singh W/o Late Dilip Singh (R-3) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Minor Manish Singh S/o Late Dilip Singh Aged About 5 Years Caste Avdhiya (Kurmi), Through his Guardian Mother Anita Singh W/o Late Dilip Singh (R-3) R/o Quarter No. 707 Chopda Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tehsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Mamta Gendle, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Adv. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 07.05.2018 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg of 3 Court of Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur at Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.70/2017, whereby a compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that on 09.06.2016 at about 7:00 pm, deceased Dilip Singh (owner and driver) was driving a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15-AD-2358, and was carrying his own family members from village Ramnagar to village Pari, but on the way near village Namadgiri Rein bridge, while providing side to a vehicle coming from the front side, the Bolero turned turtle, due to which Dilip Singh sustained grievous injuries and died. The claimants, who are the widow, children and parents of the deceased, filed a claim application under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the said vehicle. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence brought on record, considering the deceased as third party to the said vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimants and the Insurance Company has been held liable for payment of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that since the deceased himself was the owner and driver of the said vehicle, he was not a third party to the said vehicle. His position is of vehicle owner and as per the insurance policy Ex.NA-1, his risk cover limit is up to Rs.2,00,000 for which a premium of Rs. 100/- has been paid. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal being more than the limit of Rs.2,00,000/- is contrary to the policy. He also submits that there is a breach of policy conditions as the driving license of deceased, driver/owner, 4 Dilip Singh was forged and he did not possess a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents/Claimants that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. According to the facts and evidence available on record, deceased Dilip Singh was the owner of the vehicle in question, which was driven by the deceased himself and the appellant is the insurer itself of the said vehicle. The tribunal has found the deceased as third party to the vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,17,500/-. The appellant/insurance company contended that he is liable to pay the compensation only up to Rs. 2 lakh as per the insurance policy. 7. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the deceased being the owner and driver of the vehicle in question does not fall in the category of a third party, law on this point is already settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the Supreme Court, relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, has specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. Para 9.4 is 5 relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced as under: “9.4 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Nigamma. In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, as such in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163-A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent- owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.” 8. Having applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter to the present case, it is held that the claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable. Having observed and held as such, the Supreme Court, however, restricted the claimants to entitle personal accident cover strictly as per terms of insurance contract covering borrowed vehicle, which is sum of Rs.1 lakh and awarded interest as well. Para 9.8 is 6 relevant for the purpose and is reproduced as under: “9.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the accident occurred when the vehicle driven by the deceased. The said vehicle was insured with appellant herein. The insurance policy in respect of the vehicle has been brought on record marked as Ex.NA-1. On perusal of Ex.NA-1, it appears that Rs.100/- was received by the insurance company to cover the risk of personal accident to the owner- driver to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. As per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.2 lakh. Since the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself as owner of the vehicle, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner, therefore, he was not a third party to the vehicle in question. 10. Hence, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters, the argument/ground raised by the Insurance Company is accepted. If the liability of the Insurance Company arises, it will be limited to Rs.2,00,000/-. Even otherwise, as per insurance policy Ex.NA-1, the insurance company will cover the risk of personal accident to the owner-driver to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. 11. The second argument of the appellant insurance company is that the driving license of the driver Dilip Singh mentioned in the case is fake. To prove the above statement, the insurance company has got the administrative officer Mayank Shukla (NAW-1) examined, who has stated that 7 when he got Dilip Singh's driving license verified from the District Transport Office, Bhind, he was informed that the license number-294/2002 is not issued in the name of Dilip Singh and the insurance company's investigator Mahendra Singh Parmar sent a report on 07.05.2017 and declared the said license to be fake. The investigation report is Ex.NA-3 and the report given by the District Transport Office, Bhind is ExNA-4. It is worth mentioning that neither the investigator Mahendra Singh Parmar has been examined by the company regarding the said license being fake, nor has the document related to the District Transport Office, Bhind been called with a witness and proved as fake. In such a situation, in the absence of legal evidence, the statements of Mahendra Shukla do not prove that Dilip Singh had a fake license and the vehicle was driven in the absence of a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, hence the above argument of the insurance company is not found to be acceptable. 12. In that view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is partly allowed. It is directed that the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation up to Rs. 2,00,000/- out of the total awarded compensation by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent, and the rest of the conditions, including interest rate, shall remain intact. 13. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu