Smt. Supriya Vishwas Vs Durgesh Sethiya

Appellants No.1 & 2 are minor, hence represented through natural Guardian (Mother) Smt. Supriya Vishwas, wife of Late Vishwajeet Vishwas (appellant No.1).

¶12

4.Smt. Aalo Vishwas W/o Late Uttam Vishwas, Aged About 63 Years;

¶13

All appellants are R/o D.N.K. Colony, Kondagaon, Tahsil, P.S. & District- Kondagaon (C.G.).

¶14

... Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

1.Durgesh Sethiya S/o Shri Devchand Sethiya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village & Post - Baniyagaon, Tahsil and District - Konagaon (C.G.).

¶17

2.The Branch Manager IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office In Front Of

¶18

2

¶19

MAC No. 640 of 2022

¶20

Mining Office, Silver Plaza, Second Floor, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

For Appellants :- Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate with Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶23

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶24

Judgment On Board

¶25

05.12.2025

¶26

1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, challenging the impugned award dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 14/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claimants application filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988.

¶27

2.Deceased Vishwajeet Vishwas demanded the vehicle from Durgesh Sethiya/respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, and on the date of incident, the vehicle was driven by Vishwajeet

¶28

3

¶29

MAC No. 640 of 2022

¶30

Vishwa and he met with the accident and died against which the claimants filed the claim application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of ₹30,00,000/-. The Claims Tribunal while

¶31

considering the claim application has held that since the deceased had stepped into the shoes

¶32

of the owner as he drove the vehicle in question after demanding it from the owner of the vehicle/respondent NO.1 herein, and met with the accident, claim application under Section 163-A would not be maintainable, which

¶33

is sought to be challenged in the present appeal.

¶34

3.Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, would submit that in Insurance Policy (Ex.P/9), premium of ₹350/ towards personal accident coverage for owner and driver has been paid and contractual liability is confined to ₹15,00,000/-, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the extent of 15,00,000/-.₹

¶35

4

¶36

MAC No. 640 of 2022

¶37

Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

¶38

4.Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the

¶39

Insurance Company/respondent No.2, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and support the impugned award. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claimants’ application finding no merit.

¶40

5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein

¶41

above and gone through the records

¶42

meticulously.

¶43

Admittedly, the deceased was driving the

¶44

vehicle in question after demanding the same from the owner of the vehicle and while driving it, he met with the accident and died leading to filing of application under Section 163-A of

¶45

the Act of 1988. Though the deceased was driving the vehicle after demanding it from the

¶46

owner of the vehicle, but for personal accident coverage, premium of ₹350/- has been paid,

¶47

5

¶48

MAC No. 640 of 2022

¶49

therefore, the contractual liability would be confined to 15,00,000/- as per the Insurance₹ Policy (Ex.P/9). As such, the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. Accordingly, the claimants should be entitled for the compensation amount to the extent of 15,00,000/- along with₹ 6% interest from the date of application. It is ordered accordingly. The compensation amount shall carry 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. The Insurance Company/respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

7.In view of the aforesaid discussion and

¶51

analysis, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent as indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).

¶52

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶53

Ankit

Smt. Supriya Vishwas v. Durgesh Sethiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Supriya Vishwas v. Durgesh Sethiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs Smt. Fuleshwari Dhiwar

Sunita Singh Vs Belal Khan

Sangeeta Dhruw Vs Yashwant Kumar Sahu

Lata Sahu Vs Vivek Kumar Dubey

Aabda Begam Vs Sheikh Asalam

Smt. Khiro Dewangan Vs Onkar Prasad Yadav