1 CGHC010354682026 2026:CGHC:39895 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2048 of 2026 1 - Smt. Rangvati Sidar W/o Late Shri Bhajanalal Sidar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chakabahal Tehsil Tamnar District Raigarh. C.G. At Present R/o Prachi Vihar Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh. C. G. 2 - Minor Khushbu Sidar S/o Late Shri Bhajanalal Sidar Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian, Mother Smt, Rangvati, Sidar W/o Late Shri Bhajanalal Sidar Aged About 32 Years, ---R/o Village Chakabahal Tehsil Tamnar District Raigarh. C.G. At Present R/o Prachi Vihar Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh. C. G. 3 - Minor Pratap Sidar S/o Late Shri Bhajanalal Sidar Aged About 3 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian, Mother Appellant, No. 1 --R/o Village Chakabahal Tehsil Tamnar District Raigarh. C.G. At Present R/o Prachi Vihar Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh. C. G. 4 - Smt, Punibai W/o Late Shri Tejram Sidar Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Chakabahal Tehsil Tamnar District Raigarh. C.G. At Present R/o Prachi Vihar Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh. C. G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Jayshree Dhanwar W/o Shri Laxman Kumar Dhanwar R/o Village Chakabahal Tehsil Tamnar, District Raigarh. C.G. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.15 10:30:02 +0530 2 2 - Magma H D I General Insurance Company Limited Through- Its Branch Managar Branch Office No. 501, And 509, 512, 5th Floor, D B C T. Corporate Park Plot, No. 1 Block No. 9 Rajbandhu Maidan Raipur Tahj. And Distt. Raipur C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : ------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 11/09/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2026 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 12.12.2025 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 47/2025, whereby the claim petition preferred under Section 164(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of the death of Bhajanlal Sidar in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, while dismissing the claim petition, has recorded its findings in paragraphs 20 to 25 of the impugned award. It has been held that the owner of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 13 AT 3 2524, which was involved in the accident, is Respondent No.1, namely, Jayshree Dhanwar, wife of Laxman Dhanwar. It is the case of the claimants themselves that on 13.06.2023, at the time of the accident, the deceased Bhajanlal Sidar was riding the said motorcycle. The accident occurred when the motorcycle, being driven by the deceased, dashed against a tree. There is no allegation or evidence to suggest that any other motor vehicle was involved in the accident. 6. The wife of the deceased, Smt. Rangvati Sidar (AW-1), has stated that, as her husband's motorcycle had broken down, he had taken the motorcycle belonging to his friend Laxman Dhanwar on the date of the incident. Thus, the deceased, being the person who was driving the borrowed motorcycle at the time of the accident, cannot be treated as a "third party" in relation to the said vehicle. The Tribunal, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma & Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, as well as other decisions, has held that since the deceased was not a "third party", the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 164(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma & Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, and has subsequently been reiterated in Ramkhiladi & Another Vs. United India Insurance Company & Another, 2020 (1) SCCD 220 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where the deceased was himself driving a borrowed vehicle 4 and met with an accident without the involvement of any other motor vehicle, he would be deemed to have stepped 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 borrowed vehicle. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any legal or factual error in dismissing the claim petition. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are in consonance with the settled legal position. Consequently, no ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is made out. 9. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai