1 CGHC010252792024 2026:CGHC:37712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1673 of 2024 1 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Through T.P. Hub Incharge, Raipur Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Hemlata Sahu W/o Omprakash Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Paraskol Road, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Omprakash Sahu S/o Late Ganeshuram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Paraskol Road, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order o n Board 21 / 08 / 2026 1. This is Insurer appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. H-42/2023 whereby the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant has been Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.08.22 16:08:04 +0530 2 allowed and a compensation of Rs. 15,36,640/- has been awarded for the death of Vikas Sahu, who succumbed to his injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 06.11.2022. 2. The case of the claimant, in brief, is that on 06.11.2022 at around 11:30 PM, the deceased, Vikas Sahu, was travelling towards Raipur in vehicle No. CG-07-AW-2035 along with his friend, Aryan Mishra. En route, near the Belasonda railway crossing on NH-53, the vehicle collided with a bush and met with an accident. As a result, Vikas Sahu sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital in Mahasamund for treatment, where the attending doctor declared him brought dead. 3. Against a compensation claim of Rs. 37,40,000/- filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the legal heir (mother) of the deceased Vikas Sahu, aged about 22 years, who died in a road accident on 06.11.2022, the learned Tribunal, upon due consideration of the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to loss of control of the car bearing registration No. CG-07-AW-2035 by the deceased himself. The vehicle was owned by Omprakash Sahu/Respondent No. 1 (the father of the deceased). The Tribunal calculated and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,36,640/- in favour of the claimant, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company/appellant. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 4. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the annual income cannot exceed ₹40,000, yet the Tribunal erred by assuming a higher figure. The second contention is that, in accordance with the 2018 amendment 3 to Schedule II, the award amount cannot exceed 5 lakh. He further ₹ submits that the deceased borrowed the vehicle from Respondent No. 1 (his father) and was driving it at the time of the accident. As per established law (Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), a borrower or driver steps into the shoes of the owner. Actually, the deceased was the son of the owner of the vehicle, Omprakash Sahu. An owner/driver cannot be treated as a "Third Party" to claim statutory compensation against their own insurance policy under Section 163- A. The policy contract (Ex.A-11) contains no Personal Accident (PA) cover for the Owner-Driver, as no separate premium was paid for the same. Thus, there is no contractual liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the tune of 15,36,640/- ₹ The policy schedule shows an additional premium of only 50/- ₹ collected under the "WC for Driver" clause, but the deceased was not a paid driver. The Tribunal erred in treating this limited WC coverage as a basis to grant a full motor accident compensation award against the insurer. As such, the award impugned is liable to be set aside passed against the Insurance Company/appellant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant (mother of the deceased), on the other hand, supported the award impugned and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the Supreme Court, relying 4 upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, has specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. Para 9.4 is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced as under: “9.4. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Nigamma. 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 163-A 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 163-A 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 163-A 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 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163-A 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 163-A 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 opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma 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 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.” 8. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the deceased was himself driving the vehicle owned by his father at the time of the accident. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is a well-settled principle of law that an owner or a driver who steps into the shoes of the owner cannot maintain a claim against their own insurance 5 policy under Section 163-A of the MV Act as a "Third Party". 9. Furthermore, in the absence of a PA cover premium as per insurance policy (Ex.A-11), no contractual liability arises under general insurance terms. The liability of the insurer under the ₹50/- premium collected for WC for Driver is limited solely to the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. In the case in hand, the deceased was the son of the vehicle owner. The learned Tribunal committed a material illegality in awarding full compensation of ₹15,36,640/- under Section 163-A of the MV Act against the Appellant/Insurer. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside to the extent of fastening liability on the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 163-A of the MV Act. 11. However, liberty is granted to the claimant to pursue appropriate proceedings under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, if permissible, to the extent covered by the 50/- WC premium. ₹ 12. Any statutory amount deposited by the Appellant before this Court/Tribunal shall be refunded to the Appellant along with accrued interest. 13. Records of the Claims Tribunal be sent forthwith for information and necessary compliance, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu