1 2026:CGHC:8969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 638 of 2018 Smt. Seti Bai Rathore Wd/o Late Santram Aged About 40 Years R/o Rajgamar, Police Chowki Rajgamar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office First Floor, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Pandri Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. P. Acharya Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Kaiwartya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.127/2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.23 18:54:19 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 21.04.2014 at about 5:30 p.m., the deceased, Deepak Kumar Rathore, while returning home from Korba on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/12/AG/8213 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’), met with an accident when an animal suddenly crossed the road and, in an attempt to save it, he lost control of the vehicle which fell, causing him fatal injuries and resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot; at the relevant time, the deceased was earning Rs.3,200/- per month and was the sole earning member of the family, the claimant being his mother and wholly dependent upon him, and it is further the case of the claimant that she is the registered owner of the said vehicle which was duly insured with the Insurance Company on the date of the incident, and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claim and pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased Deepak Kumar Rathore was himself driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore the claimant is not entitled to any compensation; on the said finding, the learned Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has gravely erred in rejecting the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) on the ground that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is contended that a claim under Section 163-A is founded on a structured formula basis and does not require proof of fault or negligence. Learned counsel would further submit that merely because the deceased was driving the vehicle and happened to be the son of the owner, the claim could not have been dismissed, particularly when the insurance policy reflects payment of additional premium covering personal accident risk. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, it is argued that where premium has been paid towards personal accident cover for owner-driver, the legal representative is entitled to compensation in terms of the policy. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and stepped into the shoes of the owner; therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company under the statutory provisions. It is contended that in absence of coverage as a third party, the 4 claimant is not entitled to any compensation beyond what is specifically covered under the policy. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of the claim case as well as the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. From perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.D/1), it is evident that an additional premium of Rs.50/- was paid towards personal accident cover for the owner-driver. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), where such premium has been paid, the legal heirs of the deceased owner- driver would be entitled to compensation to the extent stipulated under the policy. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover. 8. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased being the driver of the vehicle in question does not fall in the category of a third party, law on this point is already settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the Supreme Court, relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, has specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an 5 accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. Para 9.4 is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced as under: “9.4 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Nigamma. In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, as such in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163-A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an 6 admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.” 9. Having observed and held as such, the Supreme Court, however, restricted the claimants to entitle personal accident cover strictly as per terms of insurance contract covering borrowed vehicle, which is sum of Rs.1 lakh and awarded interest as well. Para 9.8 is relevant for the purpose and is reproduced as under: “9.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the 7 respondent/Insurance Company and that an additional premium of Rs.50/- had been paid towards personal accident coverage for the owner-driver. Therefore, even assuming that the deceased was himself driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), the legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to receive compensation to the extent covered under the personal accident policy. Consequently, the learned Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the entire claim petition. The impugned award dated 09.10.2017 is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby set aside, and instead of dismissal of the claim petition, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded in favour of the appellant, being the legal heir of the deceased. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that the respondent/Insurance Company shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 12. The records of the learned Tribunal, along with a copy of this judgment, be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh