1 - Parmeshwar Prasad Patle S/o Ramadhar Patle, Aged About 47 Years Caste Suryavanshi v. 1 - Bharti A. Axix A General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:20861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 966 of 2017 1 - Parmeshwar Prasad Patle S/o Ramadhar Patle, Aged About 47 Years Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Tarod Bastipara, Thana And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh .............Claimant, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Bharti A. Axix A General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer, Chhattisgarh Respondent --- MAC No. 947 of 2017 1 - Parmeshwar Prasad Patle S/o Ramadhar Patle, Aged About 47 Years Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Tarod Bastipara, Thana And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh .............Claimant/ --- Appellant Versus 1 - Fundeshwar Nath Patle S/o Guhara, Aged About 23 Years Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Tarod Bastipara, Thana and Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh .................Driver. 2 - The National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Meenu Complex, Kosabadi Road, Korba, District Korba, --- Respondents Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer. For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. 2 Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Respondent/ For Ins. Company Amrito Das, Advocate. : Mr. T. Abraham, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 07/05/2025 1. These appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) have been filed by the Claimant/owner of the offending vehicles challenging the award dated 02.05.2017 and award dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa in Claim Case Nos. 84/2016 & 67/2016 respectively. 2. Though both the appeals are relating to two separate accidents wherein two different vehicles of the same owner/claimant are involved, yet the facts and law involved in both the appeals are almost similar,
Decision
they are disposed of by this common order. MAC No.966 of 2017 3. As per the facts pleaded in Claim Case No. 84/2016 appellant Parmeshwar Prasad Patle has filed the claim case u/s 166 of the MV Act to the effect that he is the owner of the Safari Vehicle No. CG 11 M/2366. On 06.08.2014, he was driving the vehicle himself from village Taraud to village Gurlidih, on the way suddenly when some cattle came across near the FCI godown behind the CCI , due to which, the vehicle lost control and collided with a tree and many of its parts were damaged. He got the vehicle repaired at Tata Motors Dealer’s 3 workshop Basant Vihar Chowk, Bilaspur, the estimate of which was Rs. 8,55,700/- lakhs, out of which, he has deposited Rs.1 lakh. His vehicle was insured by the Respondent/ Bharti Axa General Ins. Co. Ltd. He further pleaded that the Insurance Company was informed about the accident but it has not provided any amount for the expenses incurred in repairing the vehicle. Hence the applicant has filed Claim Case. MAC No.947 of 2017 4. The facts pleaded in claim case No.67/2016 are that on 08.11.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., the offending vehicle Tavera No.C.G.11- E/470 owned by Appellant/claimant Parmeshwar Prasad was driven by respondent No.1 Fandeshwar Nath Patel on a public road and collided with a divider due to which the front portion of the vehicle i.e., glass, bonnet, headlight, indicator, condenser, cooling fan, radiator, bumper etc., were damaged. In the same accident, due to rash and negligent driving of Fandeshwar Nath a person named Shyam Sundar also got injured when the vehicle collided with divider, which was reported in the Police Station Akaltara and a crime was registered against him. The appellant owner got the vehicle repaired in the shown room for which a total expenditure of 5,16,457/- was incurred by him. Therefore, he filed the Claim Case No.67/2016 for recovery of the said amount from the respondents. 5. The learned Tribunal referring to section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that the appellant is not a third party in the claim cases but he is owner of both the offending vehicle and since the 4 owner is the first party, he is not entitled to get compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle as a result of accident involving his own vehicle, rather, he can file an application or claim in the consumer forum or Civil Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in MAC No.966 of 2017 the vehicle was insured with the respondent/Insurance Company and it was the first party insurance and the respondent is bound to indemnify the claim as the vehicle was insured with the respondent. In MAC No. 947/2017, learned counsel submits that the vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2, therefore, the insurance Company was bound to indemnify the claim. He further submits that the Tribunal has rejected both the claim cases filed by the owner/appellant which is totally unsustainable. 7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the Insurance Company in both the appeals submit that the appellant is first party to the contract and the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant is not a third party and rejected the claim, which needs no interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Indisputably, in claim Case No. 84/2016, appellant Parmeshwar Prasad Patle is the owner of the offending vehicle No. C.G.11-M/2366 and the damage to the vehicle owned by him was caused due to his own negligence. In Claim Case No. 67/2016 appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle No 11E/0470 and he had given the said vehicle to his driver respondent no.1 Phaneshwar Prasad Patel to drive on public 5 Road. It is clear from the facts that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, therefore, crime was registered against the driver of appellant. 10. Section 165 of the MV Act empowers the State Government to constitute Claims Tribunals to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accidents, resulting in death or bodily injury to persons or damages to any property of third parties. Section 165 is relevant and quoted hereinbelow : “165. Claims Tribunals.--(1) – A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. 11. Therefore, it is clear that in exercise of the power conferred u/s 165 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal has been constituted by the State Government to provide compensation to persons in case of death or bodily injury to them due to the use of motor vehicles. But in case of damage being caused to the property of any person , then the Claims Tribunal can grant compensation only in respect of loss of property of a third party. Whereas in this case the appellant is the owner of the vehicle for which compensation is being demanded for damage. In view of the above position, the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant cannot be considered a “third party” and to demand compensation in this manner, he will either have to file petition in the Consumer Forum or he can file a civil suit for compensation. 6 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings of the tribunal warranting interference by this Court in the impugned awards. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be and are dismissed. 13. The records of the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back. R a o Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge