Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.09 15:04:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:16348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 674 of 2017 1. Laxmi Chakradhari Wd/o Late Mahesh Kumar Chakradhari, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Old Gourela, P.S. Gourela, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Jeevika Chakradhari D/o Mahesh Kumar Chakradhari, Aged About 19 Years R/o Old Gourela, P.S. Gourela, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Tanu Chakradhari D/o Mahesh Kumar Chakradhari, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Laxmi Chakradhari Wd/o Late Mahesh Chakradhari, R/o Old Gourela, P.S. Gourela, Distt. Bilaspur 4. Ku. Manu Chakradhari D/o Mahesh Kumar Chakradhari, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Laxmi Chakradhari Wd/o Late Mahesh Chakradhari, R/o Old Gourela, P.S. Gourela, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Ramswarup Agrawal S/o Late Girdhari Lal Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years R/o Pendra, P.S. And Tah. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Commercial Complex, T. P. Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh, Divisional Office Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswa l ) Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.13/2015 whereby the claim application of the appellants has been rejected. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 07.05.2015, deceased Mahesh Chakradhari was going from Pendra to Bilaspur to attend a marriage ceremony by driving Scorpio bearing registration No.CG 12 AK 4196, when on the way near Kenda valley, the said vehicle suddenly collided with a tree due to mechanical failure, as a result of which, Mahesh Chakradhari suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The incident was reported to Police Outpost Belgahna, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur on which FIR was registered under several sections of IPC in Crime No.145/2015. 3. The claimants who are the wife and children of deceased Mahesh Chakradhari filed a claim application under section 163(A) of the MV Act before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.56,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, vide impugned order dated 10.01.2017 rejected their claim on the ground that deceased driver Mahesh Chakradhari died on account of his own negligence, against which the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimants submits that the claim application was filed under Section 163A of the MV Act under which negligence is not seen. He submits that as per the insurance policy Ex. P-13, a premium of Rs.50/- was paid for the driver under, which the risk of the deceased up to Rs.1,00,000 is also covered. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the present appeal by awarding suitable compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that since the claimants themselves have pleaded the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000 per month, the claim application under section 163A of the MV Act would not be maintainable. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of rejection of the claim application is just and proper and does not require any interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the case, the claim application was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which, rash and negligent driving is not required to be proved and it is not seen who is negligent. Therefore, the first argument of the appellants is found to be proper. 8. Deceased Mahesh Chakradhari himself was the driver of the said vehicle, therefore, the claim application under Section 163A of MV Act would not be maintainable. The law in this regard is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the 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 as under: 4 “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 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.” 9. Having applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter to the present case, it is held that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable. Having observed and held as such, the Supreme Court, however, restricted the claimants to entitle personal accident 5 cover strictly as per terms of insurance contract covering borrowed vehicle, which is sum of Rs.1 lakh and awarded interest as well. Para 9.8 is relevant for the purpose and is reproduced as under: “9.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the accident occurred when the Scorpio driven by the deceased collided with a tree. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 Insurance Company. The insurance policy in respect of the vehicle has been brought on record marked as Ex.P- 13. Perusal of Ex.P-13 it appears that Rs.50 was received by the insurance company to cover the risk of paid driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. Since the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner, therefore, he was not a third party to the vehicle in question. 11. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matter, if the liability of the Insurance Company arises, it will be limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. Even otherwise, as per insurance policy Ex.P-13, the insurance company will cover the risk of personal accident to the driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. 12. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal preferred by the appellant/claimants is allowed. It is directed that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization. The liability would be upon the Insurer i.e. Respondent No.2. 13. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Khatai Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge