1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1107 of 2020 1 - Priti Agrawal W/o Late Vikesh Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o - Morga, Police Thana - Bango, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aaru Agrawal D/o Late Vikesh Agrawal Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Priti Agrawal, R/o - Morga, Police Thana - Bango, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vasu Agrawal S/o Late Vikesh Agrawal Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Priti Agrawal, R/o - Morga, Police Thana - Bango, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Satpal Agrawal S/o Late Abhayram Agrawal Aged About 66 Years R/o - Morga, Police Thana - Bango, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Laxmi Bai W/o Shri Satpal Agrawal Aged About 60 Years R/o - Morga, Police Thana - Bango, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited. Branch Office Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (Chhattisgarh). (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C.G. 15/c.W./7200)., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 2 - Pradeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Ishawer Chand Agrawal R.K. Traders Street Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (Chhattisgarh). (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C.G. 15/c.W./7200)., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 19/11/2025 1. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the learned I st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case No. 131/2018 dated 03.03.2020, whereby the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 2. Facts of the present case are that on 09.09.2018 at about 7:00 a.m., the deceased Vikesh Kumar Agrawal, while driving the offending vehicle i.e., Bolero bearing registration No. CG-15-CW-7200, was going to Udayapur from Morga, but unfortunately, the Tyre of the said vehicle got burst & the vehicle turned turtle, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it. The claimants, who are wife, minor children, and parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 33 years old and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The Insurance Company filed its reply and took a specific plea that the Bolero vehicle was registered in the name of Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, and that the deceased had stepped into the 3 shoes of the owner; therefore, application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. 3. Mr. Vikash Pandey, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in dismissing the claim petition as the Bolero vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. He further submitted that the Insurance Company failed to prove the fact that deceased would not come within category of third party; thus, he prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Bolero vehicle was registered in the name of the uncle of the deceased, namely Pradeep Kumar Agrawal and the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner and met with an accident by his own rash and negligent driving, therefore, the claimants cannot claim compensation. He further submitted that since no other vehicle was involved in the accident, the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable; thus, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the matter of Ningamma & Anrs. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 509 : AIR 2009 SC 3056, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case death of owner while driving his own vehicle, his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation under section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly, if a borrower of vehicle died in accident, his legal heirs are also not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163 (A) as borrower will be considered owner of the vehicle. 4 7. In the matter of G. Nagarathna v. G. Manjunatha (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. The relevant paragraphs 11, 12, and 14 are reproduced hereinbelow:– “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, the 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 accident, the insurance was in force. Immediately after the accident, Smt. Shobharani furnished information regarding the accident to the Arasikere Rural Police on 18.06.2014 at 11 a.m. Based on the said information, the jurisdictional police registered FIR in Crime No.149/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC against the deceased Sri N.S. Ravisha. Upon investigation, the police filed an abated charge sheet against him. Admittedly, the claimants have not challenged the charge sheet filed against the deceased. The claimants subsequently sought to amend the claim petition by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, proposing to introduce a new plea, namely, that the driver-side tyre had burst 5 as a result of which the car tilted, the driver lost control, and the accident has caused. 14. Insofar as the entitlement to compensation and the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) has clearly held that when an application for compensation is made under Section 166, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and thereafter proceed to make an award. It is further observed that when such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it must be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving, and that he would be covered under the policy so as to make the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to his legal heirs. In the present case, it is admitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, and he being a self tort-feasor, his legal heirs cannot claim compensation for his death; otherwise, it would amount to permitting a person who committed a breach to secure compensation for his own wrongs. Here, the deceased had borrowed the vehicle in question from respondent No.1; thus, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, and for the negligence of the owner or borrower of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to indemnify such wrongs. This view finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu B. Mehta and Another (supra). The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also supports this view with regard to the entitlement of compensation by the heirs of the deceased when the deceased himself is the tort- feasor.” 8. The judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the same on 02.07.2025 in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22411/2025. 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts & law, the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the deceased himself, was a tort-feasor, the legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation for his death; otherwise, it would amount to a person who committed a breach 6 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. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim