Chattisgarh High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Ragini Yadav on 6 May, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:21149
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1260 of 2023
National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, New Civil
Lines, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh............. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-
08-Al-9845)
... Apellant(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Ragini Yadav W/o Late Ramlal Yadav Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Badhaitola, Baldevpur, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh...............Claimant.
2 - Kanhaiya Yadav S/o Late Ramlal Yadav Aged About 9 Years Minor
Represented Through Guardian (Next Friend) And Mother Smt. Ragini
Yadav, R/o Village Badhaitola, Baldevpur, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh...............Claimant.
3 - Garima Yadav S/o Late Ramlal Yadav Aged About 7 Years Minor
Represented Through Guardian (Next Friend) And Mother Smt. Ragini
Yadav, R/o Village Badhaitola, Baldevpur, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh...............Claimant.
4 - Pratap Yadav S/o Late Ramlal Yadav Aged About 4 Years Minor
Represented Through Guardian (Next Friend) And Mother Smt. Ragini
Yadav, R/o Village Badhaitola, Baldevpur, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh...............Claimant.
5 - Tiharu Yadav S/o Late Hamir Yadav R/o Village Badhaitola,
Baldevpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh...............Claimant.
6 - Dhirbati Yadav W/o Shri Tiharu Yadav R/o Village Badhaitola,
Baldevpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh...............Claimant.
7 - Tarak Das Manikpuri S/o Late Manohar Das Manikpuri R/o Dau
Chaura, Ward No.16, P.S. Khairagarh, Tehsil Khairagarh, (Then District
Rajnandgaon) Now District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
(Chhattisgarh)....................(Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle No.
C.G.-08-Al-9845) ... Respondents
2
For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, advocate along
with Ms. Gunjan Rani Agrawal,
Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge
Order on Board
06/05/2026
1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") has been filed challenging the award dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 42/2021, whereby a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 6 along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of the death of deceased Ramlal Yadav in a motor accident that occurred on 27.07.2020.
2. As per pleadings, on 27.07.2020 at about 06:45 A.M., the deceased Ramlal Yadav was proceeding towards Dalli on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-AL-9845, owned by respondent No. 7, in connection with the work of the said respondent No. 7. Near Badi Puliya, a stray cattle suddenly came in front of the motorcycle and, while attempting to avoid the same, the offending vehicle dashed against a tree. As a result of the accident, Ramlal Yadav sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. In respect of the said incident, a case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 3 was registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon vide Crime No. 269/2020.
3. As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 163 (A) of the MV Act, the deceased Ramlal Yadav was aged about 30 years earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. The claimants, being wife, children and parents of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 9,25,000/-.
4. Respondents No. 7 owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte and did not file any written statement.
5. The appellant herein (Non-applicant No. 2 before the claims Tribunal), while admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with its company, has denied its liability on the ground that the policy did not cover all risks and no Personal Accident (P.A.) cover was obtained by the owner. It has further been pleaded that the accident occurred due to the deceased's own rash and negligent driving at a high speed, that he was not holding a valid driving licence, and that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident, as reflected in the medical report; therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, decided the case in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that claim application itself was not maintainable as the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such there is no coverage of Personal Accident of owner-driver. Thus he submits that the claim application deserves to be 4 set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Com. Limited reported in AIR 2020 SC 527,
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 6/claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that there is no material available on record to establish that the offending vehicle had been borrowed by the deceased from respondent No. 7. It is, therefore, contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, proper, and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record.
10.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and that no other vehicle was involved in the said incident. The insurance policy, exhibited by the Insurance Company as Ex. D-1, does not disclose payment of any premium towards Personal Accident coverage for the owner/driver.
11.From the aforementioned evidence and facts available on record, it is apparent that on the date of accident, deceased himself was driving the private vehicle. He was not a paid driver but a borrower and, therefore, he stepped into the shoes of owner of the offending vehicle. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 has held that the 5 borrower of the vehicle stepped into the shoes of owner, therefore, borrower of the vehicle or his legal representatives are not entitled for compensation from the insured. In the case at hand, deceased was driving the vehicle as borrower of the vehicle, hence, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and not entitled for any amount of compensation as third party.
12.Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra) has again considered the entitlement of the claimants under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 by legal representatives of the owner of the motor vehicle and held thus:
"5.9 ... It is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act."
13.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) and Ramkhiladi (supra) it is manifest that deceased Ramlal Yadav, who was himself driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, could not be treated as a third party. Consequently, the claim petition preferred by his legal representatives under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable in law.
6
14.Since no premium had been paid towards Personal Accident coverage for the owner/driver under the insurance policy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal committed a manifest error in awarding compensation in favour of the claimants. Consequently, the present appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 42/2021 is hereby set aside.
15.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Jyoti,