Allowed

Smt. Farida Begam v. Sheikh Alim

Chhattisgarh HC26 Jun 2024MAC/414/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court allowed appeal by National Insurance Company and dismissed enhancement appeal by claimants. Court held Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act inapplicable where owner/driver is deceased, preventing heirs from claiming compensation against insurance company or owner.

What did the court decide?

IMPUGNED award set aside; claim under Section 163-A dismissed against Insurance Company and Owner; deposit recovered if any.

Smt. Farida Begam Vs Sheikh Alim — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No.392 of 2020

¶4

National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Authorised Authority, Manager, In-Charge, Legal Hub, Divisional Office - Vayapar Vihar Road, Above Canara Bank, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Farida Begum Wd/o Late Sheikh Rehman Aged About 40 Years, R/o Subhash Chowk Mooongbadi Keshkal, Police Station And Tehsil Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, Halmukam Housing Board Colony Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

Namira Bano D/o Late Sheikh Rehman Aged About 19 Years R/o Subhash Chowk Mooongbadi Keshkal, Police Station And Tehsil Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, Halmukam Housing Board Colony Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ku. Naj Bano D/o Late Sheikh Rehman Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Farida Begum Wd/o Late Sheikh Rehman, R/o Subhash Chowk Mooongbadi Keshkal, Police Station And Tehsil Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, Halmukam Housing Board Colony Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

Faizan Sheikh S/o Late Sheikh Rehman Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Farida Begum Wd/o Late Sheikh Rehman, R/o Subhash Chowk Mooongbadi Keshkal, Police Station And Tehsil Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, Halmukam Housing Board Colony Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

Usman Sheikh S/o Late Suleman Sheikh Aged About 80 Years, R/o Subhash Chowk Mooongbadi Keshkal, Police Station And Tehsil Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, Halmukam Housing Board Colony Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Sheikh Aleem S/o Janab Sheikh Ramzan Aged About 51 Years R/o Subhash Chowk, Moongbadi Keskal, P.S. And Tahsil Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Owner) ---- Respondents

¶12

¶13

M.A(C) No.414 of 2020

¶14

Smt. Farida Begam W/o Late Sheikh Rehman Aged About 40 Years Permanent Resident Of Subhash Chowk, Mungbadi, Keshkal, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, At Present, Resident Of Housing Board, Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

Namira Bano D/o Late Sheikh Rehman Aged About 19 Years Permanent Resident Of Subhash Chowk, Mungbadi, Keshkal, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, At Present, Resident Of Housing Board, Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

Ku. Naz Bano D/o Sheikh Rehman Aged About 17 Years Permanent Resident Of Subhash Chowk, Mungbadi, Keshkal, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, At Present, Resident Of Housing Board, Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶17

Faijan Sheikh S/o Late Sheikh Rehman Aged About 15 Years Permanent Resident Of Subhash Chowk, Mungbadi, Keshkal, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, At Present, Resident Of Housing Board, Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶18

Usman Sheik S/o Suleman Sheik Aged About 80 Years Permanent Resident Of Subhash Chowk, Mungbadi, Keshkal, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon, At Present, Resident Of Housing Board, Dondekala, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants

¶19

Versus

¶20

Sheikh Alim S/o Janab Sheikh Ramjan Aged About 51 Years R/o Subhash Chowk, Mungbadi, Keshkal, P.S. And Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Bajaj Platina Vehicle Motorcycle registration No. C.G.-17-K.A.-3462), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶21

The National Insurance Company Ltd Registered Office 3 Vidcleton Street Post No. 9229, Kolkata 700079, Second Address- Above Central Bank Near RMS Office, Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) 494001 (Insurer Of Offending Bajaj

¶22

¶23

Platina Vehicle Motorcycle registration No. C.G.-17-K.A.-3462)

¶24

---- Respondents

¶25

Shri Dashrath Gupta, Shri GM Hasan and Shri DK Shukla, counsel for respective parties.

¶26

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶27

27.06.2024

¶28

As both these Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) arise out of the same award dated 06.11.2019 passed by the 8^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.734/2018, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order.

¶29

M.A(C) No.392/2020 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award on the ground that the claim Petition filed under Section 163 of the Act of 1988 was not maintainable and M.A(C) No.414/2020 was filed by the Claimants for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that Shiekh Rehman, while driving motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 17 KA 3462, in order to save himself, caused an accident, which resulted into his death. The Appellants/Claimants i.e. wife, children and father have filed a claim Petition and after enquiry, the said claim was allowed in their

¶31

¶32

favour and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded as compensation and it was directed that the Insurance Company shall first pay the said amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e. Respondent No.1-Shiekh Aleem.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. He placed reliance on Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, which was also relied upon by coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Meena Bai Sen v. Tulsiram Sen reported in AIR ONLINE 2022 CHH 314 .

¶34

Learned Counsel for the Owner has supported the submission made by Insurance Company that the claim is not maintainable against the owner as the deceased himself was responsible for the accident.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the Claimants submits that the Tribunal has awarded less compensation which is required to be enhanced suitably.

¶36

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the award impugned as also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶37

In the matter of Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it has been observed and held at

¶38

¶39

paras 22 & 23 as under:-

¶40

“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 163A. 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.

¶41

When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶42

9. A similar view has been taken in the matter of Meena Bai Sen

¶43

v. Tulsiram Sen (supra) wherein, it was observed that for all 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 and it was further observed that in order to make out a case under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, the claimant has to be a third party or a third person unrelated to the owner in any manner. In the said case, reference was also made with regard to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 in

¶44

¶45

which, it has been observed that Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 cannot be said to have any application in regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. It was further held therein that the question is no longer res integra and the liability under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 is only on the owner of the vehicle since a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipeint, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compenstaion under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 for the death or the bodily injury suffered by the owner or borrower or the driver of the insured vehicle. Resultantly, the impugned award passed in favour of the Claimants is set aside and accordingly M.A(C) No.414/2020 filed by the Claimants is hereby dismissed and M.A(C) No.392/2020 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby allowed.

¶47

It is directed that if any amount has been deposited earlier by

¶48

the Insurance Company, the same shall be recovered from the Claimants in accordance with law.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶51

Priya

Smt. Farida Begam v. Sheikh Alim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Farida Begam v. Sheikh Alim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashoda Thakur Vs Ravendra Gupta

Smt. Sweta Sahu Vs Narendra Sahu

Dinesh Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Brijesh Prasad @ Brijendra Nath

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Farida Begum

Smt. Chandrakanta Verma Vs Ishwar Soni @ Iswar Prasad Soni