1 2026:CGHC:8741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 142 of 2018 1 - Smt.Sudha Bansal W/o Ramesh Bansal, Aged About 46 Years 2 - Ku. Awni Bansal D/o Ramesh Bansal, Aged About 20 Years Both Caste - Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Beside Jindal Plywood, Raigarh, PS Tehsil & Distt. Raigarh CG (Claimants) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramesh Bansal S/o Late Lakhmichand Bansal, Aged About 53 Years, Caste - Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Beside Jindal Plywood, Raigarh, PS, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh CG ( Vehicle Owner / Non Applicant no.1) 2 - Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Yervada, Pune (Maharashtra) Pin 411006, Branch Office - Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Teh. and Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin 492001 (Insurance Company / Non Applicant No.2) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 589 of 2018 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Yerwada, Pune (Maharashtra) Pin 411006, Branch Office Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (CG) (Insurer Of Scoda Car No. C.G.13-C-7890) ---Appellant(s) Versus SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 1 - Smt. Sudha Bansal W/o Ramesh Bansal, Aged About 46 Years 2 - Kumari Avani Bansal D/o Ramesh Bansal, Aged About 20 Years Both R/o Gandhi Ganj, Beside Jindal Plywood, Raigarh, Thana And Tahsil Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3 - Ramesh Bansal S/o Late Lakhmichand Bansal, Age 53 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj, Beside Jindal Plywood, Raigarh, Thana And Tahsil Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Scoda Car No. C.G.13-C-7890) --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Claimants : Mr. Ujjwal Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasa d Order on Board 18/02/2026 1. The decision rendered in this MA(C) No.142 of 2018 shall also govern disposal of other connected appeal being MA (C) No.589 of 2018, because both the appeals arise out of the same impugned award and also arise out of the same accident. 2. This Appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) against the award dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) in Claim Case No.79/2016. 3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.3,72,000/- by way of compensation to 3 the claimants for the death of deceased – Aman Bansal in a vehicular accident 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Aman Bansal, a 20 year old engineering student, came to his parents home during summer vacation after appearing for his second year examination. His father Ramesh Bansal owned a furniture business in Raigarh, where Vishal Kedia was employed as an administrator. On the date of the accident i.e. 7.6.2013, Aman Bansal and Vishal Kedia were travelling in the offending vehicle to Korba West Power Plant, Chandrapur Road to collect a furniture order. The offending vehicle was being driven by deceased – Aman Bansal. When they reached near Gram Tetla, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Pussore, a cow suddenly emerged from the right side of the road. Aman Bansal applied the brakes to avoid collision with the animal; however, the steering mechanism failed, causing the vehicle to go out of control. Aman Bansal and Vishal Kedia sustained serious injuries and died. A criminal case was registered by the concerned police station. It is this event, which gave rise to filing of the claim petition by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act, out of which, this appeal arises, claiming compensation for his death. 5. Respondents contested the claim. Parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal by the impugned award partly allowed the claim petition. It held that since the deceased was a bachelor, his annual income was assessed at Rs.38000/-. The Tribunal then deducted 50% towards personal expenses (Rs.19,000/-) from his annual 4 income for working out the dependency and then, by applying a multiplier of 18, awarded a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- to the claimants. In addition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium. In this way, a total sum of Rs.3,72,000/- was awarded to the claimants. It is this determination which is under challenge in this appeal. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company denied the claims of the appellants/claimants raising an objection that deceased Aman Bansal was not an employee of the Insured. Furthermore, the appellants suppressed the material fact that the deceased was the son of the Registered Owner, thereby dis- entitling them to any compensation under the terms of the policy. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- on account of death of Aman Bansal. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and on the lower side, therefore, therefore, it may be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Claim Petition has been filed under Section 163- A of the Act. He submits that since the deceased was the son of the owner of the offending vehicle, he steps into the shoes of the owner and is, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that while the vehicle was insured with the Company as per the Insurance Policy (Ex.D/4) and an additional premium of 5 Rs.100/- was paid towards Personal Accident (PA) cover, no further liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. In the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra), the Hon’ble 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. Para 9.4 is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced hereunder: “9.4 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Nigamma. In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the 6 vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, as such in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163-A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.” 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, on perusal of the record, it is evident that the deceased was the son of the owner of the offending vehicle. The accident occurred due to his own negligence, which caused the vehicle overturn, resulting in his 7 death. In view of the principles laid down down in Ramkhiladi (supra), the deceased steps into the shoes of the owner and as such, due to his own negligence, the claimants are not entitled to compensation under Section 163-A or 166 of the Act. However, as an additional premium of Rs.100/- was paid to cover Personal Accident (PA) insurance up to Rs.2,00,000/-, the claimants are entitled to receive that specific amount under the contractual terms of the Policy. 11. In that view of the matter, the appeal (MAC No.142/2018) is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.3,72,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-. The claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- in place of Rs.3,72,000/-. 12. This takes me to the other connected appeal i.e. M.A.C No.589/2018 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified in favour of the appellant (Insurance Company) by reducing the same to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in place of Rs.3,72,000/- 14. The modified award of Rs.2,00,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization; all other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay