1 CGHC010286542026 2026:CGHC:33153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1778 of 2026 1 - Gajendra Sinha S/o Dharmu Ram Sinha Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Ukari, Post Charama, Tahsil Charama, Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Danesh Kumar S/o Gajendra Aged About 13 Years Through Guardian S/o Gajendra Sinha, R/o Village Ukari, Post Charama, Tahsil Charama, Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Yogendra Kumar S/o Gajendra Aged About 11 Years Through Guardian S/o Gajendra Sinha, R/o Village Ukari, Post Charama, Tahsil Charama, Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Bhoman Sinha S/o Late Lakhan Sinha Aged About 37 Years R/o Pendawan, Thana Narharpur, Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ( Vehicle Moter Cycle No. Cg 05 A Q 0895 Driver) 2 - United India Insurance Co. Limited, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Moter Cycle No. CG-05-AQ-0895 Insurer) (Policy No. 2214033123p111976026 Registered Head Office 24 Whites Road, Chennai 600014. ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Adv. For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (31.07.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.08.03 10:34:24 +0530 2 2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01/2026 is allowed and the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 19.03.2026 passed by the learned 02nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District -Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 09/2025, whereby the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Facts of the present case are that on 24.12.2023 at about 05:00 PM, at Village CHC Narharpur, Imalipara Main Road, Police Station Keregaon, District Dhamtari, the offending vehicle i.e. Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. CG-05-AQ- 0895, being driven by respondent No. 01 Bhoman Sinha in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, caused the pillion rider i.e. the deceased Lakshmi Sinha to fall down from the said motorcycle. As a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident, the deceased Lakshmi Sinha died. Consequently, the appellants have claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 76,40,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Six Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment, and costs of the suit, jointly and severally against the respondents herein, which was dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned award is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. 3 He contends that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the documents adduced by the claimants and erroneously dismissed the claim petition despite the offending vehicle being duly insured on the date of the accident, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the claimants be awarded compensation in accordance with law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 8. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the legal heirs of the deceased Lakshmi Sinha, who died while she was riding as pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-05 AQ-0895, are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 9. It is an admitted fact that appellant No. 01 Gajendra Sinha is the husband of the deceased Lakshmi Sinha, and appellant Nos. 02 & 03 are the sons of the deceased. It is also an admitted fact in the present case that the registered owner of the offending vehicle, Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. CG-05-AQ-0895, was the deceased Lakshmi Sinha, and on the date of the incident the said motor cycle was being driven by respondent No. 01 Bhoman Sinha. The said motor cycle was insured with respondent No. 02 United India Insurance Company Limited. 10. From the material available on record, it is established that on the date of accident i.e. 24.12.2023, respondent No. 01 Bhoman Sinha, the driver of Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. CG-05-AQ-0895, did not possess a valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The Administrative Officer Damlu 4 Goyari (NAW-01) who was examined on behalf of respondent No. 02/insurance company, has deposed in his examination that the Third Party insurance of Motor Cycle No. CG-05-AQ-0895 was valid from 20.12.2023 to 19.12.2028, in the said accident, the owner of the said vehicle, Lakshmi Sinha, died and since the deceased did not fall within the scope of "Third Party", the appellants are not entitled to receive compensation from the Insurance Company. 11. In the matter of Ningamma & Anrs. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 509: AIR 2009 SC 3056, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case death of owner while driving his own vehicle, his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation under section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly, if a borrower of vehicle died in accident, his legal heirs are also not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163 (A) as borrower will be considered owner of the vehicle. 12. In the matter of G. Nagarathna v. G. Manjunatha (2024) Supreme (Kar) 1260, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a miscellaneous appeal preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased, inter alia, on the ground that a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of a tort-feasor is not maintainable. The Court also held that only loss of consortium can be granted in such cases. The relevant paragraphs 11, 12, and 14 are reproduced hereinbelow:- "11. The wife, son and parents of deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha filed claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of Sri.N.S.Ravisha in a road 5 traffic accident that occurred on 18.06.2014. The averments in the claim petition are that the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha drove Fiat Linea car bearing registration No.KA-06 N-5997 in high speed, rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, lost control over the same, due to which the car toppled on the road leading to his death. The wife of the deceased i.e. claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that accident occurred due to tyre burst. The said portion of the evidence is contrary to her own pleading. Hence, such evidence is unacceptable. The pleading and evidence available on record indicate that the claimants have taken clear stand before the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased Sri.N.S.Ravisha. 12. Admittedly, the deceased had borrowed the said car from respondent No.1, the registered owner, which was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. As on the date of the accident, the insurance was in force. Immediately after the accident, Smt. Shobharani furnished information regarding the accident to the Arasikere Rural Police on 18.06.2014 at 11 a.m. Based on the said information, the jurisdictional police registered FIR in Crime No.149/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC against the deceased Sri N.S. Ravisha. Upon investigation, the police filed an abated charge sheet against him. Admittedly, the claimants have not challenged the charge sheet filed against the deceased. The claimants subsequently sought to amend the claim petition by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, proposing to introduce a new plea, namely, that the driver-side tyre had burst as a result of which the car tilted, the driver lost control, and the accident has caused. 14. Insofar as the entitlement to compensation and the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) has clearly held that when an application for compensation is made under Section 166, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and thereafter proceed to make an award. It is further observed that when such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it must be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving, and that he would be covered under the policy so as to make the Insurance 6 Company liable to pay compensation to his legal heirs. In the present case, it is admitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, and he being a self tort-feasor, his legal heirs cannot claim compensation for his death; otherwise, it would amount to permitting a person who committed a breach to secure compensation for his own wrongs. Here, the deceased had borrowed the vehicle in question from respondent No.1; thus, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, and for the negligence of the owner or borrower of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to indemnify such wrongs. This view finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minu B. Mehta and Another (supra). The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also supports this view with regard to the entitlement of compensation by the heirs of the deceased when the deceased himself is the tort- feasor." 13. Based on the evidence available on record, it is clear that at the time of the accident, Respondent No. 1 was driving the Bajaj Platina motorcycle (Registration No. CG-05-AQ-0895) without a valid and effective driving license. This constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore, it is established that the deceased, Lakshmi Sinha, was the registered owner of the insured vehicle. As the owner of the vehicle, even while travelling as a pillion rider, she does not fall within the definition of a "Third Party." Consequently, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Similarly, given that the deceased was the owner of the offending vehicle, the appellants are legally not entitled to claim relief or compensation against Respondent No. 1 also. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, the 7 claimants failed to establish the negligence of any third party, which is the sine qua non for maintaining a claim under Section 166 of the Act. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal under Issue No. 3 that the claimants are not entitled for compensation is based on proper appreciation of the evidence, therefore, warrants no interference. 15. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu