1 2025:CGHC:60307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 687 of 2022 Binbai W/o Late Sunder Lal Nishad, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Rahoud, Tahsil Pamgarh, Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Shivcharan Kewat S/o Kaushal Prasad Kewat, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bhilouni, Post Office Jodhara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) .............Owner Of Vehicle Bearing Regd.No. Cg-11-Ar-1924 2 - Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Main Road, Vyapar Vihar, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)..........Insurer Of Vehicle Bearing Regd.No. Cg-11-Ar-1924 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Utkarsh Patel on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocates For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 11.12.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 09/05/2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, Distritct Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 64/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by her under Section 164 of the Act of 1988 holding it to be non-maintainable as the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Vikas Kewat was the employee of owner of the vehicle namely Shivcharan Kewat (respondent No. 1 herein) and the accident happened while he was driving his employer’s motorcycle to carry out the work assingned by him and after suffering greivous injuries, he died, therefore, the appellant/claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the c in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder1. 1 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 3 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would support the impugned award and submit that deceassd had borrowed the motorcycle owned by respondent No. 1 herein namely Shivcharan Kewat, and as he stepped into the shoes of the owner, therefore, the appellant/claimant would not be entitled for compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, deceased Vikas Kewat was driving the motorcycle owned by respondent No. 1 herein Shivcharan Kewat when the accident occurred, however, according to the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant namely Binbai supported by her statement before the court (P.W.- 1), deceased was the employee of respondent No. 1 Shivcharan Kewat and he was going to carry out the work handed over by his employer when the accident happened. True it is that the Insurance Company has taken a plea that deceased had borrowed the motorcycle from respondent No. 1 Shivcharan Kewat and he was driving it in the capacity of the owner, but no evidence has been led by them in this regard except for the examination of their Law Officer Gourav Geete (DW-1) who has though stated that deceased had taken the motorcycle from the owner 4 but the fact remains that he is a Law Officer of the Insurane Company and has no personal knowledge whether the deceased was employee of the owner or not. As such, from the aforesaid evidence brought on record, it has been established that deceased was employee of owner of the vehicle i.e. Respondent No. 1 heren and at the time of the accident, he was going to carry out the work of his employer and as such, the appellant/claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in view of amendment carried out in the 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 w.e.f. 22/5/2018. 6. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Urmila Halder (supra) may be noticed herein profitably :- “10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and we agree with the view taken. We may, however, add that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. In the present case, the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company has not been interfered with. Only the computational mode and the modality have been further clarified, which rightly has been noted by the High Court and accordingly, the claim has been enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). As 50% of the compensation amount was stayed by this Court, the same be paid to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment within eight weeks.” 7. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside 5 and the appellant/claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- which shall stand increased by 5% annually from the date of 01/01/2019 as per amendment carried out in the 2nd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 w.e.f. 22/5/2018. Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 28/07/2021 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet