Chattisgarh High Court
Ranjana vs Yogesh Sahu on 10 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/7
2025:CGHC:22812
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 17 of 2020
1. Ranjana Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur
Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, Tahsil And
District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village -
Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli, District
Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
2. Kishan S/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur Aged
About 17 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor, Through Their
Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh
Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, Tahsil
And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village -
Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli, District
Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
3. Ku. Chanchal D/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh
Thakur Aged About 15 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor,
Through Their Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @
Prithaviraj Singh Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15,
Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At
Present R/o Village - Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Sta-
tion Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
4. Ku. Manisha D/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh Thakur
Aged About 13 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor, Through
Their Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj
Singh Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha,
2/7
Tahsil And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o
Village - Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli,
District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
5. Ankit S/o Late Vijay Singh @ Pritahviraj Singh Thakur Aged
About 11 Years (At Present 18 Years) Minor, Through Their
Mother Ranjana, Wd/o Late Vijay Singh @ Prithaviraj Singh
Thakur, Aged 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kawardha, Tahsil
And District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village -
Batha, Post Office Semersal, Police Station Mungeli, District
Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)
... Appellants/claimants
versus
1. Yogesh Sahu S/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o
Raipur Road, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh. (Owner),
2. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Fourth Floor,
Gwalani Chamber, Office No.T-8, Vyapar Vihar Road, Near
ICICI Bank Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) (Vehicle).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : None though served.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
10/6/2025
1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated
12.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.81/2018 by which learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims
Tribunal) has dismissed application of appellants seeking
3/7
compensation on account of death of deceased Vijay Singh alias
Prithivraj in a motor vehicular accident.
2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on
30.6.2018 Vijay Singh (since deceased) along with his one Jalesh
Yadav was returning Kawardha from village Podi on motorcycle
bearing registration number CG09-ZE-3301, when they reached
near Jail Turn, Vilage Joratal suddenly two cattle came in front of
motorcycle as a result Vijay Singh fell down and sustained
grievous injuries on head and other parts of body. He was taken to
the District Hospital, Kabirdham where he was given primary
treatment and looking to the nature of grievous injuries, he was
referred to Raipur where he died in Shri Narayan Hospital during
course of treatment. Claimants filed an application under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’)
seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.48,50,000/- pleading that
they are legal heirs of deceased and were dependent on his
income.
3. Non-applicant No.1 opposed the application by filing its reply. It
was pleaded that deceased was not doing work of Mason, as
pleaded, and the amount of compensation claimed is highly
exaggerated. On the date of accident, the motorcycle was insured
with non-applicant No.2, therefore, in case, any compensation is
awarded to claimants, then insurance company is liable to be pay
the same.
4. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply to application and denied the
averments made therein, except the admitted facts. Accident has
not been occurred on account of negligence of non-applicant No.1
4/7
and even any accident is found to have been occurred from the
insured vehicle then the same was the outcome of negligence on
the part of the deceased himself. The deceased had stepped into
shoe of the owner, therefore, he cannot be termed as third party
and hence, the application of claimants is not maintainable. On the
date of accident, deceased was not having valid and effective
driving license, which amounts to violation of policy condition. Non-
applicant No.1 has also not intimated the accident to the insurance
company as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Hence, the insurance company is not at all liable to indemnify the
insured.
5. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the
respective parties dismissed application of claimants by the
impugned award on the ground that claimants failed to prove that
at the time of accident deceased was driving motorcycle in the
capacity of co-driver or employee of the owner of motorcycle and
therefore, they are not entitled to get compensation under Section
163A of the Act of 1988.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims
Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation to the
claimants/ appellants and the reasons assigned for not awarding
the same are not only illegal and unjust but also against the
material available on record. Referring to decision in the case of
Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Com. Limited reported in
AIR 2020 SC 527, learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the liability of Insurance Company
would be as per the terms and conditions of contract of insurance
5/7
policy and under the policy, the risk of owner-driver is covered and,
therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded the
compensation to the extent of coverage of risk under PA to owner-
driver.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2
Insurance Company would submit that the policy issued for the
vehicle in question does not cover the risk of deceased rider as the
policy covers only third party claims and the deceased cannot be
said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle. He
further submitted that deceased was not registered owner of the
vehicle and the insurance policy stands in the name of non-
applicant No.1/respondent No.1 herein, therefore, appellants are
not entitled to compensation even under Personal Accident Cover.
8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
9. To appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants, this Court perused the copy of insurance policy, which
has been placed on record as Ex.NA-1. From perusal of insurance
policy, it is clear that a premium of Rs.50/- was charged towards
compulsory Personal Accident cover for owner-driver and liability of
insurance company was limited to Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. In case of of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that when a person borrowed motorcycle from its owner and met
with an accident resulting into death then borrower stepped into the
shoes of the owner of vehicle, so insurance company is liable to
6/7
pay compensation to the claimant of the deceased because
insurance company took premium for personal accident of the
owner and the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner.
11. In case of Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Com. Limited
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 Hon’ble Supreme Court has
considered the issue with regard to coverage of a person driving
the vehicle other than the owner and risk of owner-cum-driver was
covered under the policy and observed thus:
“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 herein-above, 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 2nd 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
10-5-2018 [United India Insurance Co. v. Ramkhiladi, 2018
SCC OnLine Raj 3264] 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 2nd Schedule. At the same
time, as observed herein-above, 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
7/7
12. In the case at hand also, deceased driver was the permissible user
of motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by
respondent no. 2. Deceased driver was also holding valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident, which is produced
before the Claims Tribunal as Ex.A-11. Since the deceased had
stepped into the shoes of owner of motorcycle and respondent No.
2- Insurance Company took premium for personal accident of the
owner-driver, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, claimants-
appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.1 Lakh from the
insurance company.
13. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in part. Impugned
award is hereby set aside; application of claimants-appellants is
allowed in part and it is directed that appellants-claimants are
entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by
respondent No.2- Insurance Company. This amount of
compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date
of filing of the application till its realization.
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally signed Sd/-
by SYED
ROSHAN (Parth Prateem Sahu)
ZAMIR ALI Judge
roshan/-