1 CGHC010113552024 2026:CGHC:34620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 864 of 2024 1 - Chandra Kumar Verma S/o Dayaram Verma, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Bana, P.S. Kharosa, Distt- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Parvati Verma W/o Chandra Kumar Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bana, P.S. Kharosa, Distt- Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - Manisha Soni, S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Soni, R/o House No. 51/76, Nagar Nigam, Near Pump House Ring Road Number 1, Kushalpur, Raipur, Tah And Dist. Raipur ( C.G.). (Owner of Vehicle No. C.G. 044-lM/9303). 2 – ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Officer In Charge, I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Chawla Complex, Devedera Nagar Road Distt- Raipur ( C.G.). (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. 04/lm./9303) ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Adviocate, on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur For Respondent(s) : ...None…. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (06.08.2026) 1. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 12.01.2024 passed ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.08.10 12:38:45 +0530 2 by the learned VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 521/2019 whereby the application filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case pleaded by the claimants are on the date of accident 23.3.2017 deceased Vasu Verma was going from village Bana to Raipur driving Motorcycle No. C.G.04-LM-9303 at a normal speed. On the way at about 08.00 hrs. when he reached near village Guma the front wheel Tyre of the motorcycle burst due to which the vehicle lost balance and Vasu Verma fell on the road and became unconscious. At the same time, an unknown vehicle ran over the unconscious deceased and fled. The deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 5. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the legal heirs of the deceased Vasu Verma who died while he was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-LM-9303 are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 6. It is an admitted fact that the appellants are parents of deceased. The registered owner of the offending motorcycle No. CG-04-LM-9303 is 3 respondent no.1. The said motor cycle was insured with respondent No. 02 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 7. From the material available on record, it is established that the Policy (Ex.D-1) was produced by the Insurer. The Legal Officer Deepak Soni was examined on behalf of the Insurer as (N.A.W.1). He has deposed that the claimants were asked to produce the driving licence of deceased if they had, but they have not produced the same, therefore, due to violation of insurance policy terms, the company is not responsible for compensation. He has further stated that according to the claimants, the deceased was a motorcyclist. However, the vehicle owner did not pay any premium to cover the risk of driver. Therefore, they are not liable to pay damages even under the head of PA owner /driver. 8. 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. 9. 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 4 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 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 Company liable to pay compensation to his legal 5 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." 10. In the instant case, the Tribunal has observed that driving of motorbike by the deceased was not in breach of the Insurance Policy. However, after examining the Ex.D-1 it is clear that the vehicle was insured in the name of respondent no.1 Manish Soni under a liability policy from 26.12.20216 to 25.12.2017. Therefore, it is not in dispute that on the date of accident 23.03.2017, the vehicle was insured and respondent no.1 Manish Soni is the registered owner of vehicle. 11. If the insurance police (Ex.D-1) is minutely perused, the fact remains unrebutted that no premium was charged for Personal Accident coverage in the policy. Therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable for paying compensation to the the claimants for the death of deceased and thus the Tribunal has rightly absolved the insurer from its liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal has found that there is no evidence regarding the fact that deceased Vasu Verma was employed by Manish Soni, the registered owner of the vehicle and was driving the vehicle on his instruction on the date of accident. It is established from the evidence of N.A.W.1 that the deceased was neither the owner and policy holder of the insured motorcycle nor 6 he was a third party. Therefore, the appellants are legally not entitled to claim relief or compensation against Respondent No. 1 also. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, the claimants failed to substantiate the claim application for compensation u/s 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles 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. 13. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao