1 CGHC010020492022 2026:CGHC:28978 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 164 of 2022 1 - Putribai Sidar W/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present Bhudeopur, Nawapara Post Kachhar, Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Neha Sidar D/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar Aged About 17 Years Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Putribai Sidar, Minor Manish Sidar W/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Tamnar , Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present Bhupdeopur , Nawapara Post Kachhar , Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Nisha Sidar D/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Putribai Sidar, Minor Manish Sidar W/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Tamnar , Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present Bhupdeopur , Nawapara Post Kachhar , Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Manisha Sidar D/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Putribai Sidar, Minor Manish Sidar W/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Tamnar , Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present Bhupdeopur , Nawapara Post Kachhar , Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Minor Disha Sidar D/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Putribai Sidar, Minor Manish Sidar W/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Tamnar , Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present Bhupdeopur , Nawapara Post Kachhar , Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.13 17:19:03 +0530 2 6 - Minor Mahi Sidar D/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Putribai Sidar, Minor Manish Sidar W/o Late Durga Prasad Sidar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Tamnar , Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present Bhupdeopur , Nawapara Post Kachhar , Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - The National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager , Scope Minar Kor 3, 2nd Floor, Laxminagar, Delhi 110092. (Insurance Company) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment o n Board 10 / 07 / 2026 1. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 08.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 43/2021 whereby the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants has been dismissed. 2. The case of the appellants, in brief, is that on 04.03.2020 at about 01:20 pm, the deceased Durga Prasad Sidar was going to Raigarh from his village Tamnar with his wife on his scooty bearing registration No. CG-13-AJ-3909. When they reached near the village Velwatikara mod, the vehicle scooty became unbalance dashed into an electric signal poll and because of this, the deceased received grievous injury on his head. He was admitted to the Metro Hospital Raigarh, but on 08.03.2020, deceased Durga Prasad Sidar died. 3 3. As against compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased by filing claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for the death of Durga Prasad Sidar aged about 40 years in the motor accident on 04.03.2020. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a scooty bearing registration No. CG-13-AJ-3909 by its driver-cum- owner/deceased himself. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act by the legal heirs of the deceased is not maintainable and dismissed the claim application holding that the claimants are not found entitled for compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that no premium was paid by the deceased/owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle has been insured with the respondent company, and the premium has also been paid for cover risk of the owner/driver. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed, and proper compensation may be awarded in favour of the claimants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent, on the other hand, supported the award impugned and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, 4 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 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 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.” 8. In the case in hand, the deceased was not a third party to the of offending vehicle but was the owner/driver. Furthermore, looking to 5 the vehicle policy (Ex.D-1) and the statement of Arun Kumar Yadav (NAW-1), examined by the insurance company, it has come to light that no premium amount has been paid to the insurance company for risk coverage of driver or owner. 9. Having applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above referred matter, to the present case, it is held that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable. The appeal filed by the appellants, on its face, is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu