1 CGHC010056072024 2026:CGHC:34277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 366 of 2024 1 - Ballu Yadav S/o Firanta Yadav, Aged About 43 Years R/o Ekta Bagar, Temri Thana Mana Camp, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ananya Yadav D/o Ballu Yadav Aged About 16 Years Minor Through His Guardian Father Ballu Yadav S/o Firanta Yadav, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ekta Bagar, Temri Thana Mana Camp, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Niraj Yadav S/o Ballu Yadav, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through His Guardian Father Ballu Yadav S/o Firanta Yadav, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ekta Bagar, Temri Thana Mana Camp, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor, Mm Silver Plaza, In Front Of Uddhog Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent : Shrishti Attal, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (05.08.2026) 2 1. The claimants have preferred this appeal against the award dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.486/2021, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed. 2. The claimants had filed claim petition under Section 166(1) of the Act claiming compensation stating that on the date of accident i.e. on 27.12.2020, deceased Sohadra Yadav, was sitting as pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04-MM-4519, which was being driven by non-applicant No.1-Narendra Yadav, son of the deceased (died during inquiry before Tribunal), in rash and negligent manner and hit it into a small pothole, due to which the driver lost his control and deceased Sohadra Yadav who was sitting in the pillion, fell down and suffered severe injuries and died on 01.01.2021 while undergoing treatment at DKS, Hospital, Raipur. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition by holding that the deceased being the rider of the motorcycle, stepped into the shoes of the owner and, therefore, the claim was not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. The motorcycle was admittedly insured and an additional premium of Rs.750/- had 3 been paid towards personal accident cover, thereby fastening liability upon the insurer to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2020) 2 SCC 550 . 4. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the testimony of eyewitness Ballu, who had clearly deposed regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, thereby establishing the accident and the involvement of the insured vehicle. It was argued that the evidence adduced by the claimants sufficiently proved the occurrence of the accident and negligence. It was also contended that the Tribunal overlooked the material documentary evidence placed on record, including the estimate relating to the damaged vehicle, which corroborated the occurrence of the accident but was not taken into consideration. It has been also argued that the claimants had successfully proved the accident and the resultant death of the deceased by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned award may be set aside and the appellants be awarded compensation in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent– Insurance Company supporting the impugned award submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has committed no error warranting interference by this Court. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. After scrutinizing the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the offending vehicle was being driven Narendra Yadav, who is the son of deceased, and Sohadra Yadav, was sitting as pillion rider in the vehicle. Narendra Yadav is also the owner of the vehicle, who died during the pendency of claim petition. The Claims Tribunal further observed that as per the insurance policy (Ex. D-1), the offending vehicle was insured as per Act Only Insurance Policy and in view of the law laid down by this Court Shubham Kumar Suryavanshi & Ors . Vs . Munna Lal Suryavanshi ( order dated 20.10.2021 in MAC No.590/2021) , the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to a pillion rider under an Act Only Insurance Policy. Thus, the liability to pay compensation, if any, would rest upon the registered owner of the vehicle or his legal representatives, however, Narendra Yadav, who was the registered owner as well as the rider of the motorcycle and son of the deceased, died during the pendency of the claim petition, and the present claimants are legal representatives. Consequently, the persons who would be entitled to receive the compensation and the persons who would be liable to satisfy the award are one and the same. Therefore, the claimants were held not entitled to receive any compensation and, on that basis, dismissed the claim against the respondent-Insurance Company. 5 8. On a careful consideration of the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed no error of law or fact in dismissing the claim petition. The findings of the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the settled principles of law governing the issue. The impugned award does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.08.07 10:54:47 +0530