1 2026:CGHC:2499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 663 of 2023 1. Badrika W/o Late Dharmdev Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Rani Sagar Sarangarh Thana Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Kusum Manikpuri D/o Late Dharmdev Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Rani Sagar Sarangarh Thana Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Pramod Kumar S/o Late Leelaram, R/o RSPL Colony, Thana Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Motor Cycle No. M.P. 65/M.D./6106). 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional No. 1 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Devendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insure Of The Motor Cycle No. M.P. 65/M.D./6106). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Insurance Company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.01 .2026 1. The claimants have filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 1220/2021 dated 30.01.2023, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that on 16.02.2020 at around 11:00 pm, deceased Avinash Das and Pramod Kumar were traveling on a motorbike bearing registration No. MP 65 MD 6106, the tire of the motorcycle got burst and rider lost balance, resultantly, motorcycle dashed against electric poll. In SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.16 16:42:01 +0530 2 the said accident, Avinash sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants who are mother and sister of the deceased filed claim case under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act. They pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 28 years. They claimed a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/-. The owner of the vehicle filed reply and denied averments. He pleaded that the deceased himself was driving vehicle though it was not registered in his name. He would further state that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. 3. The Insurance Company filed reply and stated that three persons were traveling on the motorbike. The rider of the bike had no driving license and the deceased was in intoxicated condition. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, claim petition was dismissed. 4. Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate would contend that additional premium of Rs. 360/- was paid to cover the risk of driver-owner. He would submit that the deceased had valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. He would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi and Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 and judgment passed in MAC No. 1009 of 2022 in the matter of Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sundar Singh Sidar and Anr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He would contend that the vehicle was registered with Pramod Kumar/respondent No. 1. He would contend that the deceased was riding the bike, and thus, he entered into the shoes of owner, and therefore, the claim petition filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable. He would submit that additional premium 3 of Rs. 360/- was paid according to terms of GR36A which states that Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an effective driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section. He would submit that as the deceased did not have valid driving license and he was not registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2020 ACJ 627 and judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of United India Insurance Company vs. Harjit Kaur and Anr. passed in FAO No. 4623 of 2014. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, registered owner of the motorbike was respondent No. 1/Pramod Kumar. On the fateful dated, the motorbike was being driven by the deceased Avinash Das himself. The deceased lost control and dashed the motorbike against an electric poll, resultantly, sustained injuries and succumbed to death. A claim case under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act was filed. According to the Insurance policy(Ex. D/1) additional premium of Rs. 360/- was paid to cover risk of Owner-Driver according to provisions of GR36A. GR36A Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver states “Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an effective driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section. Cover is provided to the Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/ dismounting from or traveling in 4 the insured vehicle as a co-driver. If further clarifies that this provision deals with Personal Accident cover and only the registered owner in person is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving license.” 8. In the present case, the learned Tribunal did not find breach of conditions of Insurance policy as the Insurance Company failed to establish that the deceased did not have valid driving license. 9. The claimants could not establish that the deceased was registered owner of the vehicle. 10. In the matter of Rajni Devi (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It is further held that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a receipient. The heirs of deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. As the deceased was not a owner of the vehicle, thus, the judgment cited by Mr. Singroul is of no help. 11. In the matter of Sundar Singh Sidar (supra), a premium of Rs. 330/- was paid to cover personal accident of owner-cum-driver. According to the condition mentioned in the Insurance policy, owner-cum-driver should have effective and valid driving license to drive a vehicle. In the said case, 5 deceased was owner-cum-driver of the offending motorcycle; therefore, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed, but in the present case, the deceased was not an owner of the offending vehicle, and thus, the facts are distinguishable. 12. In the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the judgment passed in the matter of Ningamma, 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC) held that as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle shall not be maintainable, relevant para 5.4 is reproduced herein-below :- “5.4 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra). 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 163A 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 163A 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 163A 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 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, 6 being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163A 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 163A 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 opponentowner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra), 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 163A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.” 13. In the matter of Harjit Kaur (supra), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana while dealing with the similar issue held that the term 'owner-driver' has been defined under GR-36. It states “Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an 'effective' driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section. The definition clearly restricts the meaning of `owner-driver'. It only includes owner of the insured vehicle. There is a further rider that for claiming compensation for PAC owner should be holding an `effective' driving license. In para 15, it is held that The term 'owner-driver' has been defined, hence, no word can be added or deleted from the definition to extend the benefit to claimant so that the term 'owner-driver' can be stretched to mean owner or driver. 7 14. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra), and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant