1 2026:CGHC:21009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1250 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-16, R.S.S. Market, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh............(N.A. No.2), ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Anjali Yadav W/o Late Sanjay Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Shanti Nagar, Kumhari, Tahsil- Damdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Pratima Yadav D/o Late Sanjay Yadav Aged About 7 months Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anjali Yadav, R/o Ward No.8, Shanti Nagar, Kumhari, Tahsil- Damdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shrawan Yadav S/o Late Jhumuk Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Shanti Nagar, Kumhari, Tahsil- Damdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Savita Bai Yadav W/o Shrawan Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Shanti Nagar, Kumhari, Tahsil- Damdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Gopal Yadav S/o Late Ramkumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.06 17:34:33 +0530 2 No. 04 Near Old Wine Shop, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.............(Owner Of Motorcycle Cg-07be-8237)............(N.A. No.1 And 2), ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. HP Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. CK Sahu, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 05/05/2026 1. The Claimants had preferred an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of Sanjay Yadav, who had allegedly borrowed the motorcycle from his brother-in-law namely, Gopal Yadav and was going to Kumhari. Meanwhile, he met with an accident and died, which led to filing of the aforesaid claim petition before the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’). 2. Mr. HP Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal was absolutely not justified in fastening liability on it, as in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and Another vs. United India Insurance Company and Another1, liability would be limited. 3. Mr. CK Sahu, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1, 3 & 4 would submit that the Claims Tribunal has granted 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 3 compensation of Rs.5 lakhs in view of the provision under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 which was amended with effect from 22.5.2018, which is sought to be challenged in this Appeal. 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. The appellant/Insurance Company has taken a defence in the written statement that deceased Sanjay Yadav was not a third party, however, no evidence has been led to show as to how said Sanjay Yadav was not a third party. Admittedly, the said Sanjay Yadav was a third party and he was neither owner of the vehicle nor was he closely related to the owner of the vehicle. Rather it appears that he was a distant relative. 6. In that view of the matter, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi (Supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimants. 8. The Appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve