1 CGHC010116322026 2026:CGHC:39727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 885 of 2026 1 - Smt. Devlata Bai Janghel W/o Late Santosh Kumar Janghel, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village- Mahrumkala, P.O. Mahrumkala, Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2 - Srishti Janghel D/o Late Santosh Kumar Janghel, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Devlata Bai Janghel, R/o Village- Mahrumkala, P.O. Mahrumkala, Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3 - Nikhil Janghel S/o Late Santosh Kumar Janghel, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Devlata Bai Janghel, R/o Village- Mahrumkala, P.O. Mahrumkala, Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 4 - Sukhram S/o Late Sarju Janghel, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village- Mahrumkala, P.O. Mahrumkala, Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 5 - Smt. Malin Bai S/o Shri Sukhram Janghel, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village- Mahrumkala, P.O. Mahrumkala, Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Prabhuram Verma S/o Late Ramji Verma R/o Village- Mahrumkala, P.O. Mahrumkala, Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver Of Motorcycle No. CG 22 P 0122) 2 - Mamta Rani Thakur W/o Shri Harishchand Thakur R/o SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.11 15:57:51 +0530 2 Makan No.- 443/10, Ward No. 41, Subhash Nagar, Mitan Chauk Kelabadi Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Motorcycle No. CG 22 P 0122). 3 - Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Fafadih Chowk Raipur, Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. CG 22 P 0122). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur Advocate For Respondents : None though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (10.09.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the same is allowed and the delay of 372 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. 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 07.12.2024 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 259/2022, whereby the claim petition preferred by the Appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Santosh Kumar Janghel in a motor vehicle 3 accident, has been dismissed. 5. The case of the claimants/appellants, in brief, is that on 01.01.2022 at about 5:30 p.m., at Village Thelkadih, in front of Patta Godown, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), respondent No.1 was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-22-P-0122, on which Santosh Kumar Janghel was travelling as a pillion rider, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the said motorcycle approached a speed breaker, it became unbalanced, as a result of which Santosh Kumar Janghel fell headlong onto the road and became unconscious. At the same time, the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-H-0728, while driving the said motorcycle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, ran over Santosh Kumar Janghel, who was lying unconscious on the road. As a result of the accident, Santosh Kumar Janghel sustained grievous and fatal injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The accident was reported at Police Station Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), on the basis of which Crime No. 04/2022 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the drive of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-08-H-0728. The claim petition has been filed before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, 4 owner, and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-22-P-0122, on which the deceased was himself travelling as a pillion rider. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law and on facts in treating the deceased as the driver of the offending vehicle, whereas he was travelling as a pillion rider at the time of the accident. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition by applying the principle applicable to the owner/borrower of the vehicle, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside, the claim petition be allowed, and just and reasonable compensation be awarded to the claimants/appellants in accordance with law. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and perused the material available on record including the order impugned. 8. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the grounds recorded in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the impugned award. The Tribunal held that the deceased, Santosh Kumar Janghel, was himself riding motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-22-P-0122 at the time of the accident after borrowing it from respondent No.2, the registered owner of the vehicle. Upon perusal of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and the final report (Ex.D-2), the Tribunal found that respondent No.1, Prabhuram Verma, was travelling as a pillion rider, whereas the deceased was riding the said motorcycle. Consequently, the Tribunal held that, being a borrower and driver of the vehicle, the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner and could not be treated as a 5 third party. Since no separate premium had been paid to cover the risk of the owner/driver, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claim arising out of the death of the deceased. Relying upon the judgments 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 were not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition came to be dismissed. 9. 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 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the said vehicle. 10. In the present case, the accident occurred on 01.01.2022. The motorcycle involved in the accident was owned by 6 Respondent No. 2-Mamta Rani Thakur, and was insured with the Respondent No. 3/TATA AIG Insurance Company. The deceased was himself driving the said motorcycle at the time of the accident. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the deceased is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. The legal representatives of the deceased cannot maintain a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE $ourabh