1 CGHC010085092025 2026:CGHC:38934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 597 of 2025 1 - Arjun Singh Netam S/o Sukhnath Netam Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kalipara Malgaon Post Office Malgaon Temrupadar Police Station Anantpur District - Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - Kusumbai W/o Arjun Singh Netam Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kalipara Malgaon Post Office Malgaon Temrupadar Police Station Anantpur District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Mahendra Poyam S/o Somiram Poyam R/o Village Malgaon Temarupadar Police Station Anantpur District - Kondagaon (C.G.) (Owner Of Motorcycle No. Od- 27 L- 5472 ) (Non Applicants) 2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Officer In Charge I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Chawala Complex Devendra Nagar Road Police Station Devendra Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company Of Motorcycle No. Do - 27 L- 5472 ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Raosaheb Amin, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment o n Board 02 / 09 / 2026 1. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 05.12.2024 passed by the 4th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 792/2021 whereby the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants has been dismissed. 2. The case of the applicants, in brief is that, on 26.05.2021, at about 10:00 a.m., Suresh Netam (since deceased), on the instruction of respondent No.1, was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No. OD-27-L-5472 for bringing insecticide/pesticide. When he reached near Village Malgaon, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Antagarh, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, a cow/cattle suddenly came onto the road. On applying brakes, the motorcycle became unbalanced and collided with a culvert, as a result of which deceased sustained serious injuries. He was admitted to District Hospital, Kondagaon, in a serious condition, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment on 28.05.2021. 3. As against compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased by filing claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for the death of Suresh Netam aged about 19 years in the motor accident on 3 28.05.2021. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence led by the parties, held that the deceased had taken the motorcycle from the owner of the vehicle after obtaining his permission, as such, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party. The learned Tribunal has also recorded finding that the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and that, at the time of the accident, he was riding the motorcycle with the permission of its registered owner. In such circumstances, the deceased was held to have stepped into the shoes of the registered owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, came to the conclusion that the deceased, being the driver, steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, therefore his legal heirs were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the vehicle was not being driven in violation of any term or condition of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company has neither pleaded nor led any cogent evidence to establish that there was any breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the consequence of alleged breach upon the appellants without there being any evidence to substantiate the same. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was working as a labourer 4 under respondent No.1 and, on the date of the accident, he was riding the motorcycle in the course of and pursuant to the instructions of respondent No.1. Therefore, the circumstances in which the deceased was using the vehicle ought to have been duly considered by the learned Tribunal. It has been also submitted that even if it is accepted that the deceased was stepped in the shoes of owner, then also the claimants are entitled to get compensation to the extend risk coverage taken in the insurance policy. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed, and proper compensation may be awarded in favour of the claimants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on the other hand, supported the award impugned and submitted that the learned Tribunal, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 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 (supra), 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 deceased, being the driver, 5 steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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.” 6 8. In the case in hand, the deceased was not a third party to the of offending vehicle but was driver who borrowed the vehicle from its owner. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants holding that the deceased, being the driver, steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, therefore his legal heirs were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. This Court does not find any fault in the approach of learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants. 9. 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 appellants, 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 Pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.09.07 11:11:27 +0530