1 2026:CGHC:19734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1612 of 2019 1 - Smt. Santubai W/o Late Hanuman Soni Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 32, Tethwarpara, Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Darshana D/o Late Hanuman Soni Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santubai W/o Late Hanuman Soni, R/o Ward No. 32, Tethwarpara, Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kishan S/o Late Hanuman Soni Aged About 9 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santubai W/o Late Hanuman Soni, R/o Ward No. 32, Tethwarpara, Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dhanraj Soni S/o Late Baluram Soni Aged About 69 Years R/o Ward No. 32, Tethwarpara, Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Badubai W/o Dhanraj Soni Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 32, Tethwarpara, Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.05.01 14:25:40 +0530 2 District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Ashok Soni S/o Dhanraj Soni Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 32, Tethwarpara, Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Corporation Limited, Near Railway Station, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None Despite Service Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. Vide order dated 16.9.2013 the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) on a preliminary objection filed by respondent No.2 dismissed the claim application of the appellants filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’). It is this order which is under challenge before this Court in this appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 07 LJ 4904 3 and met with an accident and died. The claim application was filed against the owner and the insurer of the said motorcycle/offending vehicle. The preliminary objection was filed by respondent No.2 with regard to maintainability of the claim application which by the impugned order was allowed and the claim application of the appellants was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even if the deceased was a driver of the motorcycle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle and since the insurance company had accepted premium for personal accident coverage of the owner of the motorcycle, in light of Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 at least the appellants should have been paid compensation of Rs.1,00,000. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the personal accident coverage accepted by the insurance company is meant for the owner while driving the vehicle subject to having a valid and effective driving licence. He also submits that it is not brought on record whether the deceased had a valid and effective driving licence while driving the said motorcycle. He submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Be that as it may, prima facie, it appears to this Court that instead of rejecting the claim application on preliminary objection the Claims Tribunal ought to have framed issues and permitted the parties to prove their pleadings. The insurance 4 company would also be at liberty to prove violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if any. 6. In light of above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for decision making on merits of the case as observed above. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 17.6.2026. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed with the matter and decide it as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. 7. The appeal, thus, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal