KAILASH KUMAR DUBEY vs VIVEK DUBEY

1

CGHC010455032024 2026:CGHC:45477
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 13 of 2025
1 - Kailash Kumar Dubey S/o Late Kamta Prasad Dubey Aged About
62 Years R/o Mig - 8 Maruti Vihar Mohba Bazar Kota Road Police
Station Aamanaka District - Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Vivek Dubey S/o Shri Kailash Kumar Dubey Aged About 32 Years
R/o Mig - 8 Maruti Vihar Mohba Bazar Kota Road Police Station
Aamanaka District - Raipur (C.G.) (Non - Claimants) (Registered
Owner Of Accidental Vehicle No. C.G. - 04 Ha- 5028 )
2 - The New India Insuarance Company Ltd. By Branch Manager
Second Floor Commericial Complex Behind Lic Office, Pandri Raipur
District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Accidental Vehicle No. Cg- 04 Ha -
5028
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Vimal Pathak, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : None.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order o n Board
/ 10 28 / 2026
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, application for condonation of delay.
2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons stated in the
application, I.A. No. 01/2024 is allowed. Delay of 54 days in
Digitally signed
by HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2026.10.28
16:30:46 +0530

2
filing the appeal is condoned.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. This is claimant’s appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against
th
the award dated 31.07.2024 passed by the 14 Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 321/2023, whereby the claim
application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
has been allowed only to the extent of contractual liability (i.e.
Rs. 1,00,000/-) of the Insurance Company under the policy.
5. In brief, the appellant's case is that on 22.03.2022, at about
5:00 pm, the deceased, Rajat Kumar Dubey, was driving his car,
No. CG-04-HA-5028, owned by respondent No. 1, with his
mother Kunti Dubey seated in the pillion, from Bilaspur to
Raipur. Near the village Bemta, an unknown vehicle struck the
car, causing it to fall off the road and overturn, resulting in the
accident. As a result, Kunti Dubey, a pillion rider, died on the
spot due to severe head and body injuries. A report was lodged,
and Crime No. 129/2022 was registered.
6. The legal heir of the deceased filed a claim application under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act") seeking compensation of Rs. 20,50,000/- for the
death of Kunti Dubey in a motor accident on 22.03.2022. Upon
due consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that, due to
the accident that occurred on 22.03.2022 involving a car
bearing registration No. CG-04-HA-5028, Kunti Bai, who was
sitting in the vehicle, died, and the driver, Rajat Kumar Dubey

3
(brother of the owner), also died in the accident. The vehicle was
owned by respondent No. 1, Vivek Dubey (son of the deceased),
and insured by respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company. The
Tribunal further found that Deputy Manager Mr. Mahesh M.B.
Acharya (NAW-1) clarified in para 3 of his statement that the
policy Ex.D-1 provided that a premium of Rs. 50 per person was
received for personal accidents for five persons travelling in the
insured vehicle. The insurance company’s maximum liability for
the death of a passenger in the accident is Rs. 1,00,000/- per
person. This information is provided in Ex. D-1, Sections B to B
of the policy. Since the deceased, Kunti Dubey, was in the car at
the time of the accident, her son, Rajat Dubey, was driving the
vehicle, and respondent No. 1 is also the deceased’s son, the
deceased would not be considered a third party. Consequently,
compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) has been
awarded to the claimant/appellant under the said policy.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would
submit that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle
at the time of the accident, considering the deceased as a third
party, the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal may be
enhanced suitably.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on the other
hand, supported the impugned award and submitted that the
Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh,
which was a contractual liability under the policy (Ex.D-1) for
the passenger.

4
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the Tribunal including award impugned.
10. In the case in hand, the deceased was not a third party to the
offending vehicle/car but was the passenger of the offending
vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal considered the contractual
liability of the company under the policy (Ex.D-1) and awarded
an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards coverage of the risk to the
passenger.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any
basis to hold the deceased as a third party for the offending
vehicle. Hence, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H. L. Sahu