1 CGHC010265552026 2026:CGHC:31601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1715 of 2026 1 - Smt. Gayatri Kahar, W/o Late Satish Kahar, Aged About 50 Years R/o Bhoipara, Gobra Nayapara, Rajim, District -Raipur (C.G.)(Applicants/ Claimants ) 2 - Rahul Kahar W/o Late Satish Kahar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Bhoipara, Gobra Nayapara, Rajim, District -Raipur (C.G.) (claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance General Company Limited Devendra Nagar, Tahsil Raipur Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) ( Insurer Of Vehicle Scooty Bearing Registration No. C.G./04/ M.W./3641) 2 - Tikam Kahar S/o Late Satish Kahar, Aged About 24 Years R/o Bhoipara, Gobra Nayapara, Rajim, District -Raipur (C.G.) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Scooty Bearing Registration No. C.G./04/ M.W./3641 ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : --- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.25 14:41:57 +0530 2 Order On Board 23/07/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay of 219 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) in Claim Case No.119/2021, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Satish Kahar in a motor vehicular accident, has been dismissed. 5. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 MW 3641, involved in the accident, is Respondent No.2. On perusal of the Insurance Certificate Ex.D-1, it is evident that as on the date of accident the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.1 under a "Bundled Two- Wheeler Policy". Further, the deceased Satish Kahar was driving the said vehicle after borrowing it from the owner thereof. Thus, the deceased does not fall within the category of a "Third Party". The deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. This legal position has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Ramkhiladi & Another Vs. United India Insurance 3 Company & Another, 2020 (1) SCCD 220 (SC). In view thereof, since the deceased is not a "Third Party", the claim petition is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited above 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 petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the borrowed vehicle. 7. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai