1 2026:CGHC:21261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1436 of 2022 1 - Anjani Sahu W/o Late Shantanu Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kurud (Silyari), P.S.-Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Khemraj Sahu S/o Late Shantanu Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Kurud (Silyari), P.S.-Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Sandeep Sahu (Minor) S/o Late Shantanu Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Their Mother Anjani Sahu, W/o-Late Shantanu Sahu R/o Village Kurud (Silyari), P.S.-Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Shubham Sahu (Minor) S/o Late Shantanu Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Mother Anjani Sahu, W/o-Late Shantanu Sahu R/o Village Kurud (Silyari), P.S.-Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - Jitendra Kumar Verma S/o Derha Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o-Village- Kevtara, Post Office-Chicholi, P.S.-Tilda, Dist-Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle Deluxe No. Cg 04, Lb 7069). 2 - Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Add.-G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yarwada Pune (Bharat) Branch Office- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Shivmohan Bhagwan, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandari, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Deluxe No. Cg 04, Lb 7069). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Ramsajeevan, Advocate For Res No. 2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.19 16:56:57 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 06/05/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.03 of 2021, whereby, the claim application filed by the claimants has been dismissed. 2. As per claim application, on 16.10.2019, at about 7.45 PM Deceased Shantanu Sahu was returning along with his wife from Gidha Nanadghat to his him in motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 004 LB 7069, when the said motorcycle fell into a pit near Ekta Nagar bypass, Simga, he sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to those injuries in the said accident. On account of the said accident, the claimants, who are unfortunate widow and children of deceased, claimed compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- by filing claim application under Section 163-A of the MV Act before the Claims Tribunal. 3. Respondents No. 1/owner denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.2/insurance company also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the deceased's own rash & negligent driving. No documentary evidence was led by the appellants/claimants to establish the profession and income of the deceased. The insurance company while admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with its company has denied its liability on the ground that the policy did not cover all risks and deceased did not come within the third party category and no Personal Accident(P.A.) cover was obtained by the owner. 3 4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them dismissed the claim case by recording a finding that on the date of accident the vehicle Motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself and during riding the vehicle, accident occurred. Further, on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, but it was insured with covering the risk of third party and the deceased would not fall under the definition of third party and no extra premium was paid towards owner and driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim case. The deceased did not die on account of his negligence. He also submits that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2. At least personal accident coverage amount should have been paid. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company opposes the above submission and submits that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such there is no coverage of Personal Accident of owner-driver. Thus, he submits that the claim application deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nigamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2009 ACJ 2020 and Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Com. Limited reported in AIR 2020 SC 527. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ningamma and another vs. United 4 India Insurance Company Limited 1 has observed in para 21 & 22 as under : 9. “21.In our considered opinion, the ratio of decision of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the Act hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 22. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A of the MV Act. But it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163- A of the MV Act. Accordingly, the legal 1 (2009) 13 SCC-710 5 representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA.” 10.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and that no other vehicle was involved in the said accident. A bare perusal of policy filed in the case would reveal the insurance company has not assumed the risk of driver by entering into special contract with the owner of the vehicle and by charging extra premium therefor. 11. The insurance company has filed the insurance policy Ex.D-2 pertaining the said vehicle. The Claims Tribunal while deciding the claim case held that the insurance company has not charged any premium covering the risk of driver – owner and thus held that as no premium is charged, no compensation can be granted in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nigamma case (supra). This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order/award. 12. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Ami