1 - Animesh Mandal Aged About 24 Years 2 - Amitesh Mandal Aged About v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 03-03-2025 Judgment delivered on : 11-06-2025 MAC No. 953 of 2017 1 - Animesh Mandal Aged About 24 Years 2 - Amitesh Mandal Aged About 19 Years Both S/o Late Ashish Mandal, R/o Omdham Colony, Mana Camp, Ward No.6, Near Government High School, P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/claimants versus 1 - Smt. Sefali Mandal W/o Late Ajit Mandal, R/o Village Palaud, P.S. Abhanpur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04 L 0959, 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Departmental Officer, Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, R/o Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E.Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04 L 0959 ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
21. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Rajni Devi, reported in 2008 5 SCC 736 is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. 19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 22. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163- A of the MVA.” 14. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, this Court is of the opinion that learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim of the claimants outright and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.2 lacs. 8 15.
Arguments
: Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J CAV Judgment This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 4.3.2017 passed by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.348/2015 whereby the claim petition has been dismissed as being not maintainable. 02. As per claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act of 1988”) by the claimants who are children of deceased Ashish Mandal, on 24.7.2014 at around 3 pm while Ashish Mandal by driving tractor bearing No. CG 04 L 0959 was going from one agriculture field to another, the tractor got stuck in the mud. However, while Ashish Mandal was trying to pull the tractor out, it turned turtle as a result of which Ashish Mandal suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. At the time of accident, he was 50 years of age, earning Rs.3000/- per month by driving tractor and the claimants were fully dependent upon him. Hence they claimed a total compensation of Rs.9.38 lacs from the non-applicants/respondents. 03. Non-applicant No.1, who is mother of the deceased, in her written statement stated that the deceased was driving the tractor at her instructions and was having a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was being used for agriculture purposes and since it was duly insured with non-applicant No.2/insurance company, it is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 04. Non-applicant No.2/insurance company in its written statement contended that the instant claim petition is not maintainable as the deceased does not fall in the category of third party because he was son of non- 3 applicant No.1, who is owner of the vehicle and as such, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner. The accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and he was also not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. Thus, there being violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy also, the non-applicant No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 05. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award and dismissed the claim petition as being not maintainable. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the impugned award is bad in law as well as on fact, arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside and the appellants be awarded just and proper compensation. Learned tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition taking an adverse inference against respondent No.2. The Act of 1988 is a benevolent act and therefore, it should be interpreted liberally keeping in mind the object and purpose of the Act. Learned Tribunal ought to have considered that definition of a third party is inclusive under Section 145 of the Act. Therefore a person who is neither a signatory nor a party to the contract of insurance will be a third party in respect of contract of insurance. Learned Tribunal failed to understand the provisions of law in its proper manner and consequently failed to grant relief to the claimants. The insurance company had taken premium of Rs.100/- towards coverage of owner-driver to the extent of Rs.2 lacs and therefore, at least the learned Tribunal should have awarded this amount to the claimants. 4 Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore and others, (1988) 1 SCC 626; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi and others, (2008) 5 SCC 736 and order dated 27.9.2022 of this Court in MAC No.971 of 2015 in the matter of Smt. Meena Bai Sen and another Vs. Tulsiram Sen and another. 07. None for respondent No.1 though served. 08. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/insurance company supporting the impugned award would submit that the learned Tribunal upon due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and the provisions of the Act of 1988 has rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground of maintainability. Therefore, there is no scope for any interference in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Learned trial Court framed five issues and Issues No.1, 2 & 3 are as under: वा(cid:2)द ्ቚ् नि(cid:7)ष्क्ቧ(cid:11) 01. क्या(cid:3) दु्ቈ(cid:6)टना(cid:3) दि(cid:10)ना(cid:3)(cid:11)क 24/07/14 क(cid:13) वा(cid:3)हना ኔ(cid:17)क्टर काሰ(cid:3)(cid:11)क सी(cid:21).जी(cid:21). ्ቚाሰ(cid:3)णि/त ह(cid:3)0। 04/एल०-0959 क(cid:17) उपया(cid:13)ग सी(cid:17) दु्ቈ(cid:6)टना(cid:3)्ቇस्त ह(cid:13)ना(cid:17) सी(cid:17) उसीक(cid:17) चा(cid:3)लक आशी(cid:21)ष ाሰ(cid:11)डल क(cid:13) ग(cid:11)भी(cid:21)र सी(cid:11)्ቈ(cid:3)तितक चा(cid:13)ट(cid:17) आना(cid:17) सी(cid:17) उसीक’ ाሰ(त्या* हुई ? 02. क्या(cid:3) ाሰ(तक आशी(cid:21)ष ाሰ(cid:11)डल ना(cid:17) उक्त वा(cid:3)हना ኔ(cid:17)क्टर क(cid:13) ति2ना(cid:3) वा3ध एवा(cid:11) ्ቚाሰ(cid:3)णि/त नाह<। ्ቚभी(cid:3)वा(cid:21) ड(cid:3)ईिሷवा6ग ल(cid:3)ईसी7सी क(cid:17) 2(cid:21)ाሰ(cid:3) प8लिलसी(cid:21) क(cid:17) शीत: क(cid:17) उल्ल(cid:11)्ቈना ाሰ7 चाल(cid:3)या(cid:3)? 03. क्या(cid:3) आवा(cid:17)०ग/ ቛኋ(cid:3)र(cid:3) ्ቚस्त*त (cid:10)(cid:3)वा(cid:3), तिनारस्त तिकया(cid:17) जी(cid:3)ना(cid:17) या(cid:13)ग्या ह3 ्ቚाሰ(cid:3)णि/त ह(cid:3)0। 5 Learned Tribunal decided Issues No. 1 & 2 in favour of the claimants but while considering Issue No.3, it found that as per conditions of the insurance policy, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 11. From perusal of the insurance policy it is clear that there is PA cover for owner–driver under Section III: CSI up to Rs.2 lacs and for that the insurance company was paid premium of Rs.100/-. The insurance company also admitted the fact that on the date of accident, vehicle No. CG 04 L 0959 was insured with it. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajni Devi and others (supra) held in paras 8 & 11 of its judgment as under: “8. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus: "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, 'permanent disability' shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 6 The said provision cannot be said to have any application in regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The question is no longer res integra. 11. The liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to.” 13. While considering the identical issue, this Court in the case of Smt. Meena Bai Sen and another (supra) held in paras 9, 10 & 11 of its order as under: “9. From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is evidently clear that in order to make out a case under Section 163(A) the claimant has to be a third party or a third person unrelated to the owner in any manner. 10. From the admitted factual matrix of the case, the deceased in the instant case was real brother of the respondent No. 1 the owner. Thus, for all these practical purposes the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner and thereby he was driving the vehicle in the capacity of the owner. 11. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the fact that in the case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2009-13 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 20 to 22 has held as under:- 20. It was held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi Reported in 2008 5 SCC 736 that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the 7 deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA.
Decision
In the result, the impugned award is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent that respondent No.2/ insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the claimants as compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.06.16 16:19:50 +0530 Khan