1 CGHC010253222022 2026:CGHC:39222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 905 of 2022 1 - Smt. Birij Karsh W/o Late Ramlal Karsh Aged About 40 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Tahsil-Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Ku. Sunayna Karsh D/o Late Ramlal Karsh Aged About 20 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Tahsil-Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 3 - Prakash Karsh S/o Late Ramlal Karsh Aged About 18 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Tahsil-Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 4 - Mangli Bai W/o Late Natthulal Aged About 70 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Tahsil-Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Shukla Complex, Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Ranjeeta Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Suchi Ramteke on behalf of Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.09 10:40:28 +0530 2 Order On Board 07/09/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 08.07.2022 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 133/2021, whereby the claim petition preferred by the Appellants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Ramlal Karsh in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed. 3. Learned Tribunal, dismissed the claim petition, on the ground that since the motorcycle involved in the accident was registered in the name of the deceased's son, namely, Prakash Karsh, and the deceased himself was driving the said motorcycle at the time of the accident, he would be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Others, 2008 ACJ 1441, the Tribunal held that the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled 3 to maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition came to be dismissed. 4. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, and subsequently in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another, 2020 (1) SCCD 220 (SC), has categorically held that where the deceased was himself driving a vehicle which he had borrowed from its owner and the accident occurred without the involvement of any other motor vehicle, the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 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 said vehicle. 5. In the present case, the accident occurred on 09.07.2021. The motorcycle involved in the accident was owned by Prakash Karsh, son of deceased Ramlal Karsh, and was insured with the Respondent/Insurance Company. The deceased was himself driving the said motorcycle owned by his son at the time of the accident and the accident did not involve any other offending vehicle. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid 4 judgments, the deceased is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. The legal representatives of the deceased, therefore, cannot maintain a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the 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. 7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai