1 CGHC010106902025 2026:CGHC:42747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 675 of 2025 Smt. Kalavati Devi W/o Hemlal Mehta Aged About 59 Years R/o Village - Hundru, District- Latehar (J.H.) … Appellant(s) versus 1 - Hemlal Mehta S/o Late Ramkrishun Mehta Aged About 60 Years Occupation - Vegetable Business, R/o Vivekanand Colony Jashpuranagar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) (Owner) 2 - HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. 3rd Floor Chawala Complex Devendra Nagar Road Sai Nagar Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 01/10/2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.10.03 12:05:01 +0530 2 Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.29/2024, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Rinku Kumar in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed. 2. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that respondent No.1, Hemlal Mehta, father of the deceased, was the registered owner of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-19-C-1114 and that the deceased Rinku Kumar himself was driving the said motorcycle at the time of the accident. Therefore, the deceased was held to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Devi and Others, 2020 ACJ 321, the Tribunal held that, as the deceased was not a "third party", his legal representatives could not maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the said vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition came to be dismissed. 3. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble 3 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) 2 SCC 550, has categorically held that where the deceased was himself driving a vehicle 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. 4. In the present case, the accident occurred on 14.11.2023. The deceased Rinku Kumar himself was driving the motorcycle involved in the accident at the relevant time, and his father, Hemlal Mehta (respondent No.1), was the registered owner of the said motorcycle. It is also not in dispute that the accident did not involve any other vehicle. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the deceased would be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle and, consequently, cannot be treated as a third party. 5. Further, there is no document or evidence available on record 4 to establish that any Personal Accident (PA) cover was effective in respect of the deceased on the date of the accident. In the absence of any such evidence, the legal representatives of the deceased 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 aforesaid legal and factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error, either of law or on facts, in dismissing the claim petition. No ground warranting interference with the impugned award is made out. 7. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai