Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI 1 TIWARI Date:

2026.02.23

18:54:19 +0530

2026:CGHC:8969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 638 of 2018 Smt. Seti Bai Rathore Wd/o Late Santram Aged About 40 Years R/o Rajgamar, Police Chowki Rajgamar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office First Floor, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Pandri Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. P. Acharya Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Kaiwartya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board

19.02.2026

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.127/2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 21.04.2014 at about 5:30 p.m., the deceased, Deepak Kumar Rathore, while returning home from Korba on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/12/AG/8213 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’), met with an accident when an animal suddenly crossed the road and, in an attempt to save it, he lost control of the vehicle which fell, causing him fatal injuries and resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot; at the relevant time, the deceased was earning Rs.3,200/- per month and was the sole earning member of the family, the claimant being his mother and wholly dependent upon him, and it is further the case of the claimant that she is the registered owner of the said vehicle which was duly insured with the Insurance Company on the date of the incident, and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claim and pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-

along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased Deepak Kumar Rathore was himself driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore the claimant is not entitled to any compensation; on the said finding, the learned Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has gravely erred in rejecting the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) on the ground that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is contended that a claim under Section 163-A is founded on a structured formula basis and does not require proof of fault or negligence. Learned counsel would further submit that merely because the deceased was driving the vehicle and happened to be the son of the owner, the claim could not have been dismissed, particularly when the insurance policy reflects payment of additional premium covering personal accident risk. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, it is argued that where premium has been paid towards personal accident cover for owner-driver, the legal representative is entitled to compensation in terms of the policy.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/

Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and stepped into the shoes of the owner; therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company under the statutory provisions. It is contended that in absence of coverage as a third party, the claimant is not entitled to any compensatio