1 CGHC010117472024 2026:CGHC:39032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 761 of 2024 1 - Vinita Paberen Kujur Wife Of Sushil Kumar Kujur Aged About 48 Years R/o B-232 Ujjaval Nagar, NTPC Sipat, P.S. Sipat, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Sushil Kumar Kujur S/o Late Samual Kujur Aged About 58 Years R/o B-232 Ujjaval Nagar, Ntpc Sipat, P.S. Sipat, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Beside I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order o n Board 03 / 09 / 2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, application for condonation of delay. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 01/2024 is allowed and the delay of 240 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This is claimant’s appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 09.05.2023 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 950/2021 whereby the claim application filed under Section 164 of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.05 15:06:55 +0530 2 the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant/appellant has been dismissed by allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 169 of MV Act by the insurance company/respondent No. 2. 5. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 164 of the M.V. Act for the death of his son Raj Kujur, who succumbed to his injuries sustained in a motor accident dated 21.03.2021, when the deceased was riding/driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-66-M-0410 owned by his father/respondent No. 1 – Sushil Kumar Kujur. 6. The Tribunal observed that the claim petition was filed on 25.06.2021 by the appellant, Smt. Vinita Poberan Kujur, seeking compensation for the death of her son, the deceased Raj Kujur, in a motor accident involving a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-14-M-0410 owned by the deceased's father, Sushil Kumar Kujur. The Tribunal further held that the claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not maintainable, as the said section providing for 'No Fault Liability' came into force only with effect from 01.04.2022 and was not applicable on the date of filing the petition. Furthermore, even if the claim is considered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides a structured formula for compensation, it remains unmaintainable. As per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court, where a person drives a vehicle owned by his father, he steps into the shoes of the owner. Consequently, the legal heirs of such a deceased driver/borrower are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A against the owner or insurer. Since the deceased, Raj Kujur, was driving the motorcycle registered in the name of his father (Respondent No. 1), he had stepped into the shoes of the vehicle's 3 owner. Therefore, the claim petition seeking compensation on the basis of 'No Fault Liability' under Section 163-A of the Act is also not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition 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 provisions of order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not attracted in the proceedings of claim case. As such, the appeal may be allowed, and proper compensation may be awarded in favour of the claimant. 8. 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 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 4 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.” 9. In the case in hand, the deceased was not a third party to the offending vehicle/motorcycle but was the rider/driver. Furthermore, looking to the vehicle policy, it has come to light that no premium amount has been paid to the insurance company for risk coverage of driver or owner. 10. Having applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 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 at admission stage itself. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu