1 CGHC010055432023 2026:CGHC:36622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 238 of 2023 1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Raghunandan Prasad Shrivas Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Tekar, Police Station - Seepat, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)............... (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Raghunandan Prasad S/o Bharatlal Shriwas Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Tekar, Police Station - Seepat, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ..........(Owner) 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office First Floor, Galaxy Heights, Vyapar Vihar Road, Near Sanjay Apartment, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)................ (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Mansi Bandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order o n Board 17 / 08 / 2026 1. This is claimant’s appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 17.10.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1269/2019 whereby the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.08.18 10:36:46 +0530 2 has been dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that on 26.04.2019, her son Bijendra @ Brijendra Shrivas had come to Bilaspur on a Passion Pro motorcycle, registration No. CG-10-AR-9746 to buy medicines for his father, the respondent No. 1, who was ill. Her son was returning home from Bilaspur with his friend Pramod Dhiwar, when suddenly, due to a mechanical fault in the vehicle, the brakes got stuck to the wheels, and the vehicle went out of control and collided with an animal standing on the road. Her son sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and died at the spot. 3. The legal heir of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), claiming compensation of 15,00,000 for the death of 25-year-old ₹ Bijendra @ Brijendra Shrivas in a motor accident on April 26, 2019. Upon due consideration of the evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle (registration No. CG-10-AR-9746) by the deceased himself, who was riding a vehicle owned by his father, Raghunandan Prasad (Respondent No. 1). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the deceased did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. This constituted a clear breach of the insurance policy conditions (Ex. D- 1). As a result, the Tribunal held that Respondent No. 2 (the Insurance Company) was not liable to pay any Personal Accident (PA) cover under the policy. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition 3 filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act because the motorcycle was insured with the respondent No. 2. The learned claims tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased had gone to Bilaspur for the work of the respondent No. 1/owner of the motorcycle, therefore, the deceased was acquired the status of owner of vehicle and thus according to compulsory insurance, the appellant who is legal heir of deceased is entitled to get the compensation for the death of her son. As such, the appeal may be allowed, and proper compensation may be awarded in favour of the claimant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, supported the award impugned and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 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 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 4 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. In the present case, the deceased was not a third party to the offending vehicle (motorcycle), but was himself riding it. Furthermore, a review of the vehicle insurance policy (Ex. D-1), produced by Ayush Nigam (NAW-1), a witness for Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company), shows that on the date of the accident (26.04.2019), the vehicle was registered in the name of Respondent No. 1 for the policy period 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020. The vehicle was covered under a package policy that included Personal Accident (PA) cover and third- party risk. However, official documents (Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3) produced by the insurance company confirm that RTO Bilaspur reported that no driving license was ever issued to the deceased, Brijendra Shrivas, by their branch. Consequently, as the deceased was driving without a valid and effective driving license, a clear breach of the policy conditions stands established. 9. Having applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court, in the above referred matter, to the present case, it is held that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable. The appeal filed by the appellant, on its face, is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu