Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Harjinder Singh S/o Jagir Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Lig 58, Behind
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.22 16:43:56 +0530 2025:CGHC:47590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2003 of 2019 Smt. Ranbeer Kaur W/o Harjinder Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Mig 229, Near Bharatmata School, In Suman Medicals Gali, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Harjinder Singh S/o Jagir Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Lig 58, Behind Tatibandh Gurudwara, Opposite Aims, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through - Divisional Manager, Branch Office, R. K. Plaza, Pechpedinaka, Ring Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1931 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
1. Smt. Ranbeer Kaur W/o Harjinder Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Mig 229, Near Bharatmata School, In Suman Medicals Gali, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Amrit Pal Singh S/o Harjender Singh, R/o Mig 229, Near Bharatmata School, In Suman Medicals Gali, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Harjinder Singh S/o Jagir Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Lig 58, Behind Tatibandh Gurudwara, Opposite Aims, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through- Divisional Manager, Branch Office R.K. Plaza, Pechpedinaka, Ring Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 MAC No. 2003 of 2019 For Appellants For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate MAC No. 1931 of 2019 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.L. Singloul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 09.2025 1. The appellants/claimants have challenged the award passed by the MAC No. 1931 of 2019 learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to First Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur passed in MACT No. 499/2016 dated 15.07.2019, whereby the claim case filed by the claimants has been dismissed on the ground that the vehicle was registered in the name of father of the deceased and the deceased was driving vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 12.06.2018 at about 9 am, the appellant No. 1 along with her son Arvind Pal Singh Randhawa were going to Gurudwara on a vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No. C.G. 20 T 0001 and when they reached near Sai Dham, the vehicle dashed the trailer wrongly parked on road, consequently, her son Arvind Pal Singh Randhawa died on spot. He would further submit that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 20 years and he was earning Rs. 3,200/- per month and he was operating a coaching institute. He would also submit that the claimants, who are parents of the deceased claimed sum of Rs. 36,50,000/- as compensation. He would contend that the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the vehicle was registered in the name of father of the deceased, namely 3 Harjinder Singh, whereas, the deceased was driving the vehicle. He would submit that the deceased would not come within the definition of owner of the vehicle as defined under Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and findings of learned Tribunal are erroneous. He would pray to allow this appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate would submit that the owner of the vehicle cannot be treated as third party; therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Nigamma and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (3) ACCD 1213 (SC) wherein it is held that Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicle Act have no application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. 4. Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 would support the contention made by Mr. Gupta. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was registered in the name of father of the deceased namely, Harjinder Singh. On the fateful date, the deceased was driving the vehicle and he dashed a stationary trailer, resultantly succumbed to death on account of injuries sustained. The claim case filed by the appellants has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance company and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, in para 9.5, 9.6 and 9.8 held as under :- 4 “9.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 9.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle. 5 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. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2 nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the Judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and Order has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018, i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2 nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 8. In this case also, the deceased entered into the shoes of the owner and premium of Rs. 100/- was paid for owner/ driver by registered owner of the vehicle to the Insurance company and the deceased was having valid driving licence and there was no breach of conditions of the policy, therefore, the Insurance company shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra).
Decision
9. Accordingly, this petition is hereby disposed of. 10. The appellant/claimant has challenged the award passed by the learned MAC No. 2003 of 2019 Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to First Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur passed in Claim Case No. 498/2016 dated 6 15.07.2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 26,250/- in favor of claimant/injured. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 12.06.2018 at about 9 am, the appellant along with her son Arvind Pal Singh Randhawa were going to Gurudwara on a vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No. C.G. 20 T 0001 and when they reached near Sai Dham, the aforesaid vehicle dashed a trailer wrongly parked on road, consequently, she sustained grievous injuries. He would further submit that she was earning Rs. 3,200/- per month by sewing etc. He would also submit that apellant calimed sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- as compensation. Mr. Mishra would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum in injury case to the tune of Rs. 26,250/-. He would further submit that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in said accident and filed a claim case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal according to notification issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India dated 22.05.2018 passed an award to the tune of Rs. 25,000 and further enhanced it by 5% annually. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would oppose. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. Considering the fact that the appellant had not sustained grievous injuries in the accident according to MLC Ex. P/9 and further, the injuries were simple in nature therefore learned Tribunal has rightly 7 passed an award to the sum of Rs. 25,000/- according to the notification dated 22.05.2018 and enhanced sum of Rs. 1250/- according to said notification. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant