1 CGHC010143042024 2026:CGHC:31698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 952 of 2024 1 - Smt. Rukhmani Sahu W/o Late Mohan @ Jagdish Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Lafinkhurd, Thana, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ----(Claimants) 2 - Harish Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mohan @ Jagdish Sahu, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Legal Gaurdian Mother Smt. Rukhmani Sahu, R/o Village- Lafinkhurd, Thana, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ----(Claimants) 3 - Smt. Kausaliya Sahu D/o Late Mohan @ Jagdish Sahu, Aged About 25 Years W/o Sukhram Sahu, R/o Ward No. 04, Harijan Para Devri, Thana And Tahsil- Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Jamin Bai W/o Prahlad Sahu, Aged About 78 Years R/o Village- Lafinkhurd, Thana Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Shri Prahlad Sahu S/o Late Keshoram, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village-Lafinkhurd, Thana, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Kiran Kishor Sahu S/o Late Mohan @ Jagdish Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Lafinkhurd, Thana, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.), (Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.06/g.M./7585) ----(Owner) 2 - Manager, Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor 106-7 Wall Fort Ozone Near Bilaspur Road, Fafadih Chowk Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ---(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 06/g.M./7585) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.27 11:30:11 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents : --- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 24/07/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay of 12 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, assailing the award dated 10.01.2024 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-152/2022, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Mohan @ Jagdish Sahu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.06.2022, has been dismissed. 5. As per paragraph 11 of the impugned award, the offending vehicle was insured for third-party risk for a period of five years i.e. from 07.11.2018 to 06.11.2023 and for comprehensive cover for one year. The accident took place on 13.06.2022. It is not in dispute that the person involved in the accident was Mohan, the father of the registered owner of the vehicle Kiran Kishore Sahu (respondent No.1). 6. The Tribunal in para-16 has held that as per Ex.P-14, the deceased was holding a valid driving licence. However, the accident occurred on 13.06.2022, i.e., after expiry of the period of comprehensive insurance cover. Therefore, the Insurance Policy Ex.D-1 did not cover the deceased on the date of 3 accident. The Tribunal has therefore exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. 7. In this case, the deceased, Mohan, had borrowed the motorcycle (Registration No. CG-06 GM 7585) from its registered owner, Kiran Kishore Sahu (Respondent No. 1). While riding the vehicle, Mohan lost balance, fell, and succumbed to his injuries. Because the accident did not involve any other vehicle and Mohan was driving the motorcycle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner. Consequently, he cannot be classified as a third party. 8. For maintaining a claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant must be a third party. The liability was upon the owner of the vehicle. Since the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself and the accident occurred without involvement of any other vehicle, the owner cannot be treated as the recipient of compensation. One and the same person cannot be both the claimant and the recipient of compensation. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 164 of the Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error, either in law or on facts, in dismissing the claim petition. No case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is made out. 10. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai