ARJUN SINGH NETAM vs MAHENDRA POYAM S/o Somiram Poyam

1


CGHC010085092025 2026:CGHC:38934
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 597 of 2025
1 - Arjun Singh Netam S/o Sukhnath Netam Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Kalipara Malgaon Post Office Malgaon Temrupadar Police
Station Anantpur District - Kondagaon (C.G.)
2 - Kusumbai W/o Arjun Singh Netam Aged About 36 Years R/o Village
Kalipara Malgaon Post Office Malgaon Temrupadar Police Station
Anantpur District - Kondagaon (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Mahendra Poyam S/o Somiram Poyam R/o Village Malgaon
Temarupadar Police Station Anantpur District - Kondagaon (C.G.)
(Owner Of Motorcycle No. Od- 27 L- 5472 ) (Non Applicants)
2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Officer In
Charge I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Chawala
Complex Devendra Nagar Road Police Station Devendra Nagar District
- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company Of Motorcycle No. Do - 27 L-
5472 )
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Shekhar Raosaheb Amin,
Advocate.

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment o n Board
/ 09 02 / 2026
1. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against
th
the award dated 05.12.2024 passed by the 4 Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 792/2021
whereby the claim application filed under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants has been dismissed.
2. The case of the applicants, in brief is that, on 26.05.2021, at about
10:00 a.m., Suresh Netam (since deceased), on the instruction of
respondent No.1, was proceeding on motorcycle bearing
registration No. OD-27-L-5472 for bringing insecticide/pesticide.
When he reached near Village Malgaon, within the jurisdiction of
Police Station Antagarh, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, a
cow/cattle suddenly came onto the road. On applying brakes, the
motorcycle became unbalanced and collided with a culvert, as a
result of which deceased sustained serious injuries. He was
admitted to District Hospital, Kondagaon, in a serious condition,
where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment on
28.05.2021.
3. As against compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- claimed by the legal
heirs of the deceased by filing claim application under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for the death
of Suresh Netam aged about 19 years in the motor accident on

3
28.05.2021. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence
led by the parties, held that the deceased had taken the
motorcycle from the owner of the vehicle after obtaining his
permission, as such, the deceased cannot be treated as a third
party. The learned Tribunal has also recorded finding that the
deceased was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the
accident and that, at the time of the accident, he was riding the
motorcycle with the permission of its registered owner. In such
circumstances, the deceased was held to have stepped into the
shoes of the registered owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal,
relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported
in (2009) 13 SCC 710 , came to the conclusion that the deceased,
being the driver, steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle,
therefore his legal heirs were not entitled to claim compensation
under Section 163-A of the Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would
submit that the vehicle was not being driven in violation of any
term or condition of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company
has neither pleaded nor led any cogent evidence to establish that
there was any breach of the conditions of the insurance policy.
Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the
consequence of alleged breach upon the appellants without there
being any evidence to substantiate the same. Learned counsel
further submits that the deceased was working as a labourer

4
under respondent No.1 and, on the date of the accident, he was
riding the motorcycle in the course of and pursuant to the
instructions of respondent No.1. Therefore, the circumstances in
which the deceased was using the vehicle ought to have been
duly considered by the learned Tribunal. It has been also
submitted that even if it is accepted that the deceased was
stepped in the shoes of owner, then also the claimants are entitled
to get compensation to the extend risk coverage taken in the
insurance policy. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed, and
proper compensation may be awarded in favour of the claimants.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on the other
hand, supported the award impugned and submitted that the
learned Tribunal, after appreciating oral and documentary
evidence, has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which does not
call for any interference by this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the Tribunal including award impugned.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and
another vs. United India Insurance Company and another ,
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the Supreme Court, relying
upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma (supra) ,
has specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section
163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with
regard to an accident wherein the deceased, being the driver,

5
steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, his legal heirs are
not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act. Para 9.4 is relevant for the purpose, which is
reproduced as under:
“9.4. An identical question came to be considered by
this Court in Nigamma. In that case, the deceased
was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its
real owner and met with an accident by dashing
against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other
vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section
163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the
deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle
which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this
Court has observed and held that since the deceased
has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the
vehicle, Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein
the owner of the vehicle himself is involved.
Consequently, it was held that the legal
representatives of the deceased could not have
claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the
Act. Therefore, as such in the present case, the
claimants could have even claimed the compensation
and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of
the Act against the driver, owner and insurance
company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle
bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third
party with respect to the offending vehicle. However,
no claim under Section 163-A was filed against the
driver, owner and/or insurance company of the
motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. It
is an admitted position that the claim under Section
163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the
insurance company of the motorcycle bearing
Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed
by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan
Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this
Court in Ningamma and as the deceased has stepped
into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing
Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the
High Court, the claim petition under Section 163-A of
the Act against the owner and insurance company of
the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811
shall not be maintainable.”

6
8. In the case in hand, the deceased was not a third party to the of
offending vehicle but was driver who borrowed the vehicle from its
owner. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim
of the appellants holding that the deceased, being the driver,
steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, therefore his legal
heirs were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A
of the Act. This Court does not find any fault in the approach of
learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants.
9. Having applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the above referred matter, to the present case, it is held
that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 is
not maintainable. The appeal filed by the appellants, on its face, is
devoid of merit and the same is accordingly liable to be and is
hereby dismissed .
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Digitally signed by
VIJAY BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2026.09.07
11:11:27 +0530
Pekde