Chattisgarh High Court
Animesh Mandal vs Smt. Sefali Mandal on 11 June, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
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 : 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:
वाद प्रश्न निष्कर्ष
01. क्या दुर्घटना दिनांक 24/07/14 को वाहन ट्रेक्टर कमांक सी.जी. प्रमाणित हाँ।
04/एल०-0959 के उपयोग से दुर्घटनाग्रस्त होने से उसके चालक
आशीष मंडल को गंभीर संघातिक चोटे आने से उसकी मृत्यु हुई ?
02. क्या मृतक आशीष मंडल ने उक्त वाहन ट्रेक्टर को बिना वैध एवं प्रमाणित नहीं।
प्रभावी डाईविंग लाईसेंस के बीमा पॉलिसी के शर्तों के उल्लंघन में
चलाया?
03. क्या आवे०गण द्वारा प्रस्तुत दावा, निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है प्रमाणित हाँ।
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.
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. 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
Digitally signed
MOHD by MOHD
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
KHAN 2025.06.16
16:19:50 +0530
Khan