Legal representatives of a deceased driver who steps into the shoes of the vehicle owner cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, unless a specific personal accident cover for the owner-driver was obtained by paying an extra premium.

AMITA DUBEY

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY

Date: 2026.05.19 16:56:57 +0530

Order on Board

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) calls in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.03 of 2021, whereby, the claim application filed by the claimants has been dismissed.

2. As per claim application, on 16.10.2019, at about 7.45 PM Deceased Shantanu Sahu was returning along with his wife from Gidha Nanadghat to his him in motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 004 LB 7069, when the said motorcycle fell into a pit near Ekta Nagar bypass, Simga, he sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to those injuries in the said accident. On account of the said accident, the claimants, who are unfortunate widow and children of deceased, claimed compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- by filing claim application under Section 163-A of the MV Act before the Claims Tribunal.

3. Respondents No. 1/owner denied the averments of the claim application. Respondent No.2/insurance company also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the deceased's own rash & negligent driving. No documentary evidence was led by the appellants/claimants to establish the profession and income of the deceased. The insurance company while admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with its company has denied its liability on the ground that the policy did not cover all risks and deceased did not come within the third party category and no Personal Accident(P.A.) cover was obtained by the owner.

4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and having decided them dismissed the claim case by recording a finding that on the date of accident the vehicle Motorcycle was being driven by the deceased himself and during riding the vehicle, accident occurred. Further, on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, but it was insured with covering the risk of third party and the deceased would not fall under the definition of third party and no extra premium was paid towards owner and driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim case. The deceased did not die on account of his negligence. He also submits that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2. At least personal accident coverage amount should have been paid.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company opposes the above submission and submits that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such there is no coverage of Personal Accident of owner-driver. Thus, he submits that the claim application deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nigamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2009 ACJ 2020 and Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Com. Limited reported in AIR 2020 SC 527.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ningamma and anoth