1 2025:CGHC:54640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 463 of 2024 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shailkumari W/o Late Amrit Lal Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Pendri (Sa), P.S. Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Keshav Verma S/o Late Amrit Lal Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pendri (Sa), P.S. Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 3 - Laxmi Narayan Verma S/o Late Amrit Lal Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Pendri (Sa), P.S. Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 4 - Pradeep Verma S/o Late Amrit Lal Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Pendri (Sa), P.S. Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 5 - Virendra Sahu S/o Heeralal Sahu R/o Ward No. 06, Sorhar, P.S., Tahsil And Dist. Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 10/11/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal assailing award dated 13.10.2023 passed in Claim Case No.45/2021, by 2 learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- on account of death of Amrit Lal Verma. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 23.12.2020, the deceased Amrit Lal Verma met with an accident due to cow fight. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. He would further submit that the claimants, who are wife and minor son, filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation to the tune of 26,25,000/- ₹ with interest. He would also contend that the vehicle in question was insured with appellant/insurance company. The learned Tribunal, granted compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- is on higher side. He would also argue that the deceased would not fall under the category of third party & he was not a registered owner of vehicle; thus, he would pray to set aside the impugned award. 3. None for the respondents No.1 to 5 though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. The only question involved in this appeal 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? 3 6. “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;” 7. 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). 8. In the instant case, the appellant (Insurance Company) has pleaded that since deceased Amrit Lal Verma was driving the vehicle in question, he would not come under the category of third party. It was not pleaded 1 (2013) 3 SCC 541 4 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 respondent No. 5 herein was the registered owner of the vehicle (CG-28-H-6582) 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’. 9. 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. 5,25,000/- under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim