The High Court dismissed an appeal against an MACT order rejecting a Section 163-A claim. The Court held that where the deceased was driving a borrowed vehicle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner, making the claim against the owner and insurer of that vehicle under Section 163-A unmaintainable as the deceased was not a third party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 8
2024:CGHC:35707
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1698 of 2024
1 - Smt. Teeshan Sinha Wife Of Late Kansram Sinha Aged About 38 Years House No. 252 Shankar Nagar Ward No. 4 Bhanupratappur, Police Station And Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
2 - Laxmi Sinha D/o Kansram Sinha Aged About 18 Years R/o House No. 252 Shankar Nagar Ward No. 4 Bhanupratappur Police Station And Tahsil Bhanupratappur District North Bastar Kanker ( C.G.).
3 - Vedika Sinha ( Minor ) D/o Late Kansram Sinha Aged About 12 Years R/o House No. 252 Shankar Nagar Ward No. 4 Bhanupratappur Police Station And Tahsil Bhanupratappur District North Bastar Kanker ( C.G.). Through- Their Natural Gaurdian Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Teeshan Sinha Wife Of Late Kansram Sinha
AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Date: 2024.09.17 10:33:10 +0530
4 - Shivani Sinha ( Minor ) D/o Late Kansram Sinha Aged About 15 Years R/o House No. 252 Shankar Nagar Ward No. 4 Bhanupratappur Police Station And Tahsil Bhanupratappur District North Bastar Kanker ( C.G.). Through- Their Natural Gaurdian Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Teeshan Sinha Wife Of Late Kansram Sinha
5 - Heena Sinha ( Minor ) D/o Late Kansram Sinha Aged About 9 Years R/o House No. 252 Shankar Nagar Ward No. 4 Bhanupratappur Police Station And Tahsil Bhanupratappur District North Bastar Kanker ( C.G.). Through- Their Natural Gaurdian Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Teeshan Sinha Wife Of Late Kansram Sinha
... Appellants.
versus
2 / 8
2 - Shir Ram General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Maruti Heritage G.E. Road Beside Sky Automobiles, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G.). (Insurer ).
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent : None.
SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.
Order On Board
11.09.2024
3 / 8
“51. The scheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In
4 / 8
terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society.”
“The Second Schedule
1[***]
[Prior to omission the Second Schedule stood as under:-]
The Second Schedule
[See Section 163A]
Compensation payable in case of Death shall be given lakh rupees.
(b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability:
Compensation payable shall be = [Rs.5,00,000/- x percentage disability as per Schedule I of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923)] :
Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.
(c) Accidents resulting in minor injury:
A fixed compensation of twenty five thousand rupees shall be payable.
1 Omitted by Act No.32 of 2019, Section 93, w.e.f. 1-4-2022
5 / 8
Vs. United India Insurance Company and anr [(2020) 2 SCC 550]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
6 / 8
could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163A 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 163A 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 163A 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 163A 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 opponentowner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra), 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 163A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.
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
7 / 8
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
8 / 8
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.”
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Ajay
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act is maintainable when the deceased was driving a borrowed vehicle and thus stepped into the shoes of the owner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai KodlaReferred¶26
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai Vs. Kodala and Ors [ (2001) 5 SCC 175] · Who else cites this
Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶27
Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda [ (2004) 5 SCC 385] · Who else cites this
Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co.Relied on¶48
Ramkhiladi and anr Vs. United India Insurance Company and anr [(2020) 2 SCC 550] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Teeshan Sinha
Laxmi Sinha
Vedika Sinha
Shivani Sinha
Heena Sinha
Mukesh Komra
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
