SITARAM LAHARE vs JAGDISH KARMAKAR

1

CGHC010156172025 2026:CGHC:45775
NAFR
PRASHANT
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
PRASHANT
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.10.31
14:21:43 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 913 of 2025
1 - Sitaram Lahare S/o Bisahu Lahare Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Kusami, Post Office- Baba Mohtara, Police Station
Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Mina Lahare W/o Sitaram Lahare Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Kusami, Post Office- Baba Mohtara, Police Station
Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1 - Jagdish Karmakar S/o Mehettar Karmakar R/o Dongarigaon,
Maroda Gariyaband, Police Station And District Gariyaband,
Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motorcycle No. C.G.- 23 H 0681)
2 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Office In
Charge Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 205, 3rd Floor,
M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 01,
Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance
Company Of Motorcycle No. C.G.- 23 H 0681)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents : Notice awaited

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
29/10/2026
1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal.
2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No.01/2025 is allowed and the
delay of 170 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
3. Heard on admission.
4. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 26/07/2024
passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case
No.1196/2021, whereby the claim petition filed under
Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation on account of the death of Manish Kumar
Lahare in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed.
5.
Learned Tribunal, while dismissing the claim petition,
recorded a finding in paragraph 18 and 19 of the impugned
award that the deceased, Manish Kumar Lahre, was driving
the motorcycle owned by respondent No. 1, Jagdish
Karmakar, with his permission and for his work at the time
of the accident. However, the claimants failed to establish

3
that the deceased was employed by respondent No. 1. As the
deceased was driving the registered owner's vehicle with his
consent, he was considered to have stepped into the shoes of
the owner and could not be treated as a third party. It was
further observed that, as evident from the Insurance Policy
(Exhibit D-1) produced by respondent No. 2/Insurance
Company, no premium had been paid to cover the risk of the
owner or driver of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal further
found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased himself.
Hence, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ningamma and Another v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Ramkhiladi
and Another v. United India Insurance Company and
Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 , learned Tribunal held that the
deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the
vehicle and, in the absence of any insurance coverage for the
risk of the owner or driver, his legal representatives were not
entitled for compensation under Section 163(A) of the Act.
Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed.
6.
The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Ningamma (supra) and subsequently in
Ramkhiladi (supra) , has categorically held that where the
deceased was himself driving a vehicle borrowed from its

4
owner and the accident occurred without the involvement of
any other motor vehicle, the deceased would step into the
shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Consequently, such a
person cannot be treated as a third party for the purpose of
claiming compensation against the owner and insurer of the
vehicle under the applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
7. In the present case, the accident occurred on 09/01/2021,
when the deceased, Manish Kumar Lahare, was himself
driving the motorcycle involved in the accident. The
motorcycle was owned by respondent No.1, Jagdish
Karmakar and it was insured in the name of the respondent
No.1. It is not in dispute that no other vehicle was involved
in the accident. Further, the insurance policy did not provide
coverage for the risk of the owner or driver, as no premium
had been paid in that regard. In these circumstances,
applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgments, the deceased must be
treated as having stepped into the shoes of the owner of the
motorcycle and cannot be regarded as a third party.
Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased are
not entitled to claim compensation against the owner and
insurer of the motorcycle under Section 163(A) of the Act.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

5
considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any
illegality or infirmity, either in law or on facts, in dismissing
the claim petition. No ground warranting interference with
the impugned award is made out.
9. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed
at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Prashant