1 CGHC010331422021 2026:CGHC:28631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 832 of 2021 1 - Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Heercharan Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Namadgiri Road, Ward No. 4, Surajpur, P.S. And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Lalita Devi Sahu W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Namadgiri Road, Ward No. 4, Surajpur, P.S. And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Amarpal Sahu S/o Shri Ramsunder Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Flat No. 331 Taalpuri B Block, P.S. Bhilai, Sector - 6 Ketwali Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle C.G. 04 KQ 8823). 2 - The New India Insurance Company Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle C.G. 04 KQ 8823). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.14 12:18:13 +0530 2 09/07/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred assailing the award dated 01.11.2021 passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 05/2020, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 20.06.2017 at about 11:00 a.m., deceased Ravi Kumar Sahu was proceeding from Village Somni towards Durg on Motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-04- KQ-8823. It is stated that near Kathiyawadi Shiv Bhakti Hotel, Gill Petrol Pump, the brakes of the motorcycle suddenly failed. Despite his best efforts to control the vehicle, the motorcycle went out of control, resulting in an accident. Ravi Kumar Sahu sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the Primary Health Centre, Somni. Owing to the seriousness of his condition, he was referred to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. 3. The appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, preferred a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of his death. Upon 3 appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, which has given rise to the present appeal. 4. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition primarily on two grounds: firstly, that a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable in the facts of the present case, as the deceased himself was driving the vehicle; and secondly, that the motorcycle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, since the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased are undisputed. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition by entering into questions relating to negligence, maintainability and breach of policy conditions, which are not relevant for adjudication of a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be set aside and just compensation be awarded to the appellants. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the deceased had borrowed the 4 motorcycle from his brother-in-law, who was its registered owner, and at the time of the accident he himself was driving the vehicle. Therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party but is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner. Consequently, a claim under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident, thereby committing a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, disentitling the claimants even to the benefit of the personal accident cover. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the record. 8. The principal question which falls for consideration is whether the legal representatives of a borrower of a motor vehicle, who dies while driving the borrowed vehicle in a self- accident, can maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of that very vehicle. 9. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, while relying upon the earlier decision in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported 5 in (2009) 13 SCC 710, has categorically held that where the deceased himself was driving a borrowed vehicle and met with an accident without the involvement of any other offending vehicle, he is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner. Consequently, the legal representatives of such deceased cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the borrowed vehicle. 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 admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act 6 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.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, in the said judgment further held that notwithstanding the non-maintainability of a claim under Section 163-A, the legal representatives may be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the benefit of Personal Accident Cover available to the owner- driver, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 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. 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the deceased died while driving Motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-04-KQ-8823. The motorcycle admittedly belonged to respondent No.1, Amarpal Sahu, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased had taken the motorcycle without his knowledge. The Tribunal has recorded a finding 7 that the deceased had borrowed the motorcycle and met with a self-accident while driving the same. As per the contract of insurance, the insurance company will be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. Since the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner, therefore, he was not a third party to the vehicle in question. Consequently, the claim petition instituted under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the same vehicle is clearly not maintainable. The learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition on this ground. 12. As regards breach of insurance policy, learned Tribunal in para-15 of its award has held that on the date of accident, the deceased did not have a valid driving licence. Therefore, the violation of insurance policy is found. 13. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters, if the liability of the Insurance Company arises, it will be limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the deceased in the present case did not have a valid driving license, which is violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Therefore, liability of even Rs.1,00,000/- does not arise. 8 14. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any legal or factual error in dismissing the claim petition. No ground warranting interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is made out. 15. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 16. The records of the Tribunal be transmitted back forthwith along with a copy of this order for information and necessary compliance. 17. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan/Khatai