1 CGHC010135012025 2026:CGHC:34232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 827 of 2025 1. Mathura Barik Widow Of Naresh Kumar Barik Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village- Bagmada, Chowki- Bhanwarpur, Police Station- Basna, Tahsil- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Ku. Pinki Barik D/o Late Naresh Kumar Barik Aged About 16 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Mathura Barik, Resident Of Village- Bagmada, Chowki- Bhanwarpur, Police Station- Basna, Tahsil- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. Khirod Barik D/o Late Naresh Kumar Barik Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Mathura Barik, Resident Of Village- Bagmada, Chowki- Bhanwarpur, Police Station- Basna, Tahsil- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Madan Khunte S/o Rohitdas Khunte Resident Of Pilwapali, Post- Gadhfuljhar, Police Station And Tahsil- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Registered Owner Of Motorcycle No. CG-06-GM-9012) 2. Branch Manager Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Office First Floor 106-107 Chalfort Ozone Bilaspur Road, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.07 14:39:38 +0530 2 District- Raipur (C.G.)(Insurer Of Motorcycle No. CG-06- GM-9012) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Adv. For Respondents : --- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 05/08/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay of 622 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No.H-185/2021, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Naresh Kumar Barik in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed. 5. From the pleadings and the evidence available on record, it is evident that the accident took place on 09.10.2020. The 3 motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-06 GM 9012, owned by respondent No.1, was insured with respondent No.2 under a comprehensive Insurance Policy Ex.NA-1, which was valid and effective on the date of accident. The said policy covered third-party risk. At the time of accident, the motorcycle was being driven by deceased, Naresh Kumar Barik. 6. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on two grounds; Firstly, the claimants have pleaded and led evidence that the annual income of the deceased Naresh Kumar Barik was more than Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable. 7. Secondly, the Tribunal found that the deceased had borrowed the motorcycle belonging to respondent No.1 for the purpose of attending an engagement ceremony. There was neither any pleading nor any evidence to establish that the deceased was employed by respondent No.1 or that he was using the vehicle with the owner's consent in the course of such employment. In these circumstances, the deceased, having borrowed and driven the vehicle, was held to have stepped into the shoes of the owner for the purpose of the insurance policy and, therefore, could not be treated as a "third party". Thus, the claim filed by the legal representatives of the 4 deceased Naresh Kumar Barik under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation both as owner and claimant, is not maintainable. While arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 527. 8. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Ramkhiladi & Another Vs. United India Insurance Company & Another, 2020 (1) SCCD 220 (SC) has categorically held that where the deceased himself was driving a borrowed vehicle and met with an accident without the involvement of any other offending vehicle, he is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner. Consequently, the legal representatives of such deceased cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the borrowed vehicle. 9. As regards personal accident cover, learned Tribunal has recorded, in paragraph 31 of the impugned award, that although the insurance policy (Ex.NA-1) was a comprehensive policy and an additional premium of Rs.750/- had been paid towards Personal Accident Cover for 5 the owner-driver, such coverage was available only to the registered owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal rightly held that the liability of the insurer is to be determined strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since the deceased was admittedly not the registered owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he did not fall within the definition of "owner-driver" under the policy. Consequently, the appellants are not entitled to claim compensation under the Personal Accident Cover as well. 10. In the matter of United India Insurance Company vs. Harjit Kaur and Anr, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 734 , 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 6 definition to extend the benefit to claimant so that the term 'owner-driver' can be stretched to mean owner or driver. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition does not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai