1 CGHC010061382024 2026:CGHC:42173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 400 of 2024 1 - Indro Achle W/o Late Navendra Kumar Achle, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Chaargao, P.S. Siksod, District Kanker Chhattisgarh Present Address Purani Basti Abhanpur, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kritika Achle, D/o Late Navendra Kumar Achle Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1/ Mother R/o Village Chaargao, P.S. Siksod, District Kanker Chhattisgarh Present Address Purani Basti Abhanpur, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ...Appellants versus 1 - Devesh Dugga S/o Bisahu Ram Dugga, R/o Chaargao, P.S. Siksod, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. C.G. 19/b.J/0452). 2 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Mandal No. 2) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Behin Jeevan Beema Karyalaya, Pandri, Raipur, P.S. Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. 19/b.J./0452. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.29 10:33:50 +0530 2 28/09/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/24, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal . 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 52 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 27.09.2023 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 315/2021, whereby the claim petition preferred by the Appellants under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Navendra Kumar Achale in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed. 5. The case of the claimants/appellants, in brief, is that on 01.03.2020 at about 6:00 p.m., near Sargikot Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Siksod, District Kanker (C.G.), the deceased, Navendra Kumar Achale, was travelling on the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-19-BJ-0452, owned by respondent No. 1. It is alleged that, due to the sudden appearance of an animal on the road, the motorcycle became unbalanced and collided with a tree. As a result of the accident, Navendra Kumar Achale sustained grievous and fatal injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained therein. 3 6. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle owned by respondent No. 1 at the time of the accident and that the claimants had failed to establish that the deceased was an employee of respondent No. 1. Therefore, the deceased would be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Tribunal held that the legal representatives of the deceased were not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition came to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition. It is contended that the deceased was working under respondent No.1 and was using the motorcycle in connection with his work. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be set aside and appropriate compensation be awarded to the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the impugned award does not warrant any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove, and perused the records with 4 utmost circumspection. 10. From the evidence available on record, particularly the testimony of claimant witness Indro Achale and the documents Ex. A-1 to A-7, it is established that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-19-BJ-0452, owned by respondent No.1, at the time of the accident. The claimants have failed to establish, by any cogent evidence, that the deceased was employed by respondent No.1. The claimant witness herself admitted that no documentary evidence was produced regarding the alleged employment or income of the deceased. 11. In view of the law laid down by 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), where the deceased was himself driving a vehicle owned by another person and the accident did not involve any other motor vehicle, the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 12. In the present case also, the deceased was himself driving the motorcycle owned by Respondent No. 1 at the time of the accident. The accident did not involve any other offending vehicle, and the deceased was not a third party for the offending vehicle. The claimants have also failed to establish any employer- employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 1. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court in the aforesaid judgments, the deceased is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased cannot maintain a claim for compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle. 13. 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. 14. 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 $ourabh