D by ig S it I a D ll D y H s A ig N n T ed 2026:CGHC:2499 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.16 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 663 of 2023

1. Badrika W/o Late Dharmdev Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Rani Sagar Sarangarh Thana Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

2. Kusum Manikpuri D/o Late Dharmdev Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Rani Sagar Sarangarh Thana Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Pramod Kumar S/o Late Leelaram, R/o RSPL Colony, Thana Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Motor Cycle No. M.P. 65/M.D./6106).

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional No. 1 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Devendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insure Of The Motor Cycle No. M.P.

65/M.D./6106).

... Respondent(s)

For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Insurance Company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

15.01 .2026

1. The claimants have filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned 8^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 1220/2021 dated 30.01.2023, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that on 16.02.2020 at around 11:00 pm, deceased Avinash Das and Pramod Kumar were traveling on a motorbike bearing registration No. MP 65 MD 6106, the tire of the motorcycle got burst and rider lost balance, resultantly, motorcycle dashed against electric poll. In the said accident, Avinash sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants who are mother and sister of the deceased filed claim case under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act. They pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 28 years. They claimed a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/-. The owner of the vehicle filed reply and denied averments. He pleaded that the deceased himself was driving vehicle though it was not registered in his name. He would further state that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.

3. The Insurance Company filed reply and stated that three persons were traveling on the motorbike. The rider of the bike had no driving license and the deceased was in intoxicated condition. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, claim petition was dismissed.

4. Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate would contend that additional premium of Rs.

360/- was paid to cover the risk of driver-owner. He would submit that the deceased had valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. He would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajni Devi and Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 and judgment passed in MAC No. 1009 of 2022 in the matter of Tata A.I.G.

General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sundar Singh Sidar and Anr.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He would contend that the vehicle was registered with Pramod Kumar/respondent No. 1. He would contend that the deceased was riding the bike, and thus, he entered into the shoes of owner, and therefore, the claim petition filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable. He would submit that additional premium of Rs. 360/- was paid according to terms of GR36A which states that Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an effective driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section. He would submit that as the deceased did not have valid driving license and he was not registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. He has placed reliance on the judg