1 2026:CGHC:25998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 993 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sunita W/o Lt Balbir, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Girwani P.S. Raghunathpur Tahshil Raghunathpur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 2 - Kumari Pratima D/o Lt. Balbir, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Throuth Leagal Guardian Their Mother Appellant No 1 R/o Village Girwani P.S. Raghunathpur Tahshil Raghunathpur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 3 - Rahul Singh S/o Lt Balbir, Aged About 7 Years, Minor Throuth Leagal Guardian Their Mother Appellant No 1 R/o Village Girwani P.S. Raghunathpur Tahshil Raghunathpur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 4 - Kumari Kusum D/o Lt. Balbir Aatmaj, Aged About 4 Years, Minor Throuth Leagal Guardian Their Mother Appellant No 1 R/o Village Girwani P.S. Raghunathpur Tahshil Raghunathpur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 5 - Kumari Pragya D/o Lt. Balbir Atmaj, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Throuth Leagal Guardian Their Mother Appellant No 1 R/o Village Girwani P.S. Raghunathpur Tahshil Raghunathpur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 6 - Smt. Paankuwar W/o Rai Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Girwani Ps - Raghunathpur Tahshil Raghunathpur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - Chola Mandalam M.S General Insurance Company Limited Raipur Branch Office Ward No 25 Second Floor Simran Towers Pandri Road Office L.I.C. Building Raipur Head Office Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.06.27 15:52:52 +0530 2 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Nikhil Sahu, Adv. On behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (25.06.2026) 1. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the learned 02nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 59/2023 dated 25.02.2026, whereby the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 2. Facts of the present case are that on 17.03.2023, the deceased, namely Balbir Singh, who was a driver of the offending vehicle, was test-driving an Ajax machine bearing vehicle No. 8769 in the gravel yard. At that time, an accident occurred and Balbir Singh was crushed under the machine, due to which he died on the spot. After the incident, the other employees of the company present there pulled Balbir Singh out of the machine, called an ambulance, and took him to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The claimants, who are the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act pleading that the deceased was earning 20,000/- per month and claimed a total compensation of ₹ Rs.35,72,000/- which was dismissed by the learned Claims 3 Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned award is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He contends that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the documents adduced by the claimants and erroneously dismissed the claim petition despite the offending vehicle being duly insured on the date of the accident, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the claimants be awarded compensation in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 5. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the legal heirs of the deceased Balbir Singh, who died while driving/testing the offending Ajax machine CG-15 DJ-8769, are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 6. In the matter of Ningamma & Anrs. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 509: AIR 2009 SC 3056, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case death of owner while driving his own vehicle, his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation under section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly, if a borrower of vehicle died in accident, his legal heirs are also not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163 (A) as borrower will be considered owner of the vehicle. 7. In the matter of G. Nagarathna v. G. Manjunatha (2024) Supreme (Kar) 1260, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a miscellaneous appeal preferred by the legal representatives of 4 the deceased, inter alia, on the ground that a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of a tort-feasor is not maintainable. The Court also held that only loss of consortium can be granted in such cases. The relevant paragraphs 11, 12, and 14 are reproduced hereinbelow:- "11. The wife, son and parents of deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha filed claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of Sri.N.S.Ravisha in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.06.2014. The averments in the claim petition are that the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha drove Fiat Linea car bearing registration No.KA-06 N-5997 in high speed, rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, lost control over the same, due to which the car toppled on the road leading to his death. The wife of the deceased i.e. claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that accident occurred due to tyre burst. The said portion of the evidence is contrary to her own pleading. Hence, such evidence is unacceptable. The pleading and evidence available on record indicate that the claimants have taken clear stand before the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha. 12. Admittedly, the deceased had borrowed the said car from respondent No.1, the registered owner, which was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. As on the date of the accident, the insurance was in force. Immediately after the accident, Smt. Shobharani furnished information regarding the accident to the Arasikere Rural Police on 18.06.2014 at 11 a.m. Based on the said information, the jurisdictional police registered FIR in Crime No.149/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC against the deceased Sri N.S. Ravisha. Upon investigation, the police filed an abated charge sheet against him. Admittedly, the claimants have not challenged the charge sheet filed against the deceased. The claimants subsequently sought to amend the claim petition by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, proposing to introduce a new plea, namely, that the driver-side tyre had burst as a result of which the car tilted, the driver lost control, and the 5 accident has caused. 14. Insofar as the entitlement to compensation and the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) has clearly held that when an application for compensation is made under Section 166, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and thereafter proceed to make an award. It is further observed that when such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it must be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving, and that he would be covered under the policy so as to make the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to his legal heirs. In the present case, it is admitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, and he being a self tort-feasor, his legal heirs cannot claim compensation for his death; otherwise, it would amount to permitting a person who committed a breach to secure compensation for his own wrongs. Here, the deceased had borrowed the vehicle in question from respondent No.1; thus, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, and for the negligence of the owner or borrower of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to indemnify such wrongs. This view finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minu B. Mehta and Another (supra). The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also supports this view with regard to the entitlement of compensation by the heirs of the deceased when the deceased himself is the tort- feasor." 8. From the evidence available on record, particularly the FIR (Ex. P-2), it stands established that the deceased, Balbir Singh, was himself driving/testing the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. During the course of such driving, the vehicle overturned, resulting in his death after he got trapped beneath it. There is no material on record to suggest that the accident occurred due to the rashness or negligence of any third party, nor was any other vehicle involved in the incident. 6 Consequently, the deceased himself was the tort-feasor and cannot be treated as a third party for the purpose of maintaining a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in G. Nagarathna v. G. Manjunatha (Supra) have consistently held that where the deceased was himself driving the vehicle and had stepped into the shoes of the owner, the legal representatives of such deceased are not entitled to maintain a claim under Sections 163A or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, the claimants failed to establish the negligence of any third party, which is the sine qua non for maintaining a claim under Section 166 of the Act. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal under Issue No. 3 that the claimants are not entitled for compensation is based on proper appreciation of the evidence, therefore, warrants no interference. 10. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE $ourabh