1 CGHC010122392025 2026:CGHC:42554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 788 of 2025 1 - Zilabiya Minj W/o Shri Pancham Minj Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Kadamdhodhi, Police Station - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - (Minor) Ku. Karina Minj D/o Shri Pancham Minj Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian - Mother Smt. Zilabia Minj W/o Shri Pancham Minj, R/o Village - Kadamdhodhi, Police Station - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - (Minor) Deepak Minj S/o Shri Pancham Minj Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian - Mother Smt. Zilabia Minj, W/o Shri Pancham Minj, R/o Village - Kadamdhodhi, Police Station - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - (Minor) Dipika Minj D/o Shri Pancham Minj, Through Natural Guardian - Mother Smt. Zilabia Minj, W/o Shri Pancham Minj, R/o Village - Kadamdhodhi, Police Station - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Chechoram Minj S/o Shri Jagnaram Minj Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Kadamdhodhi, Police Station - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Parshu Khalkho, S/o Shri Konko Khalkho Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Lamdand (Supkalo), Pakhanakot, Police Station - Kapu, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.), (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle- Hf Deluxe No. C.G.-13- A.E.-7892) 2 - The Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., I.C.I.C.I. Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, New Siddhi Vinayak Mandir, Prabhadevi, Mumbai (M.H.), - Branch Office, Commercial Building, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.), (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle- Hf Deluxe No. C.G.-13- A.E.-7892) ... Respondents Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.10.01 10:27:42 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order o n Board 30 / 09 / 2026 1. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 8/2020 whereby the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants/appellants has been dismissed. 2. The case of the appellants, in brief, is that on 19.07.2019, at about 10:00 pm, the deceased Pancham Minj along with Sadharam Lakra, was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-13-AE- 7892 to village Chikki when, in front of village Phooldih Chowk, the vehicle met with an accident due to a mechanical failure on the roadside. As a result, the deceased, Pancham Minj, fell from the vehicle, suffered grievous head and leg injuries and died. 3. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), claiming compensation of 31,00,000 for the death of 27-year-old ₹ Pancham Minj in a motor accident on 19.07.2019. Upon due consideration of the evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle (registration No. G-13-AE-7892) by the deceased himself, who was the borrower and rider of a vehicle owned by Parshu Khalkho (Respondent No. 1). The claims Tribunal held that in the light of law, the deceased does not fall in the category of third party, 3 hence his legal heirs are not entitled to receive compensation under the provisions of Section 163-a of the M.V. Act. Further, it was held that it is shown from the insurance policy, Exhibit D-1, that a premium of Rs. 330/- has been paid for a PA cover of Rs. 15,00,000/-, but the deceased, who is not the owner of the vehicle and not the driver employed by the vehicle owner, is not covered under the said policy, and the claim petition was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants 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 Respondent No. 2. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per the vehicle policy (Ex.D-1) the owner/respondent No. 1 of the offending vehicle has paid an additional premium of Rs. 330/- for PA cover for the owner/driver to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs. As such, the appeal may be allowed, and proper compensation may be awarded in favour of the claimants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 supported the impugned award, submitting that while a premium of Rs. 330/- was paid towards the Personal Accident (PA) cover for the owner-driver under policy Ex. D-1, there has been a clear breach of policy conditions. Drawing attention to the testimony of Zilabiya Minj (AW- 1), wife of the deceased, the counsel pointed out her admission during cross-examination that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Consequently, the claimants are not entitled to compensation, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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 4 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. 8. In the present case, the deceased was not a third party to the offending vehicle (motorcycle), but was riding it at the time of the incident and stepped into the shoes of owner of the said vehicle. Furthermore, a perusal of the vehicle insurance policy (Ex. D-1), produced by Bhavesh Kumar (NAW-1), witness for Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company), reveals that on the date of the accident (19.07.2019), the vehicle stood registered in the name of Respondent No. 1 under a policy valid from 30.01.2019 to 29.01.2024. The vehicle was covered under a package policy for the first year (30.01.2019 to 29.01.2020), which included Compulsory PA cover (Owner Driver). 9. As per insurance policy (Ex.D-1) of the said vehicle the driver clause is as under:- “Driver- Any person including insured; Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from Holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s Licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.” 10. Bhavesh Kumar (NAW-1), witness for Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) has stated that Pancham Minj, who died in the accident was not covered under this policy because according to the policy, the 5 premium of the insurance policy was covered if the vehicle was driven by the owner of the vehicle. Under the insurance policy, driving the vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence is a violation of the terms of the said policy and the insurance company is not liable for paying any compensation. At the time of the accident, the deceased had not posses a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said motorcycle. 11. This position is corroborated by the testimony of Zilabiya Minj (AW- 1), wife of the deceased, who explicitly admitted in paragraph 10 of her cross-examination that her husband did not hold a valid and effective driving licence when the accident occurred. 12. Since the deceased was riding the said motorcycle without a valid and effective driving licence, it constitutes a clear and material breach of the insurance policy (Ex. D-1) conditions. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) is absolved of any liability to pay the Personal Accident (PA) claim under the policy. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu