SMT. SATYA BANJARE vs BHUPENDRA SINGH BANJARE

1

CGHC010027232023 2026:CGHC:45347
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 139 of 2023
1 - Smt. Satya Banjare W/o Late Shri Ranjeet Banjare Aged About 30 Years
R/o Village Bimori, Police Station- Palari, District : Balodabazar-
Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
2 - Minor Ishika Banjare D/o Late Shri Ranjeet Banjare Aged About 6 Years
Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Satya
Banjare Appellant No. 1 R/o Village Bimori, Police Station- Palari, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
3 - Minor Harshal Banjare S/o Late Shri Ranjeet Banjare Aged About 4
Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Satya
Banjare Appellant No. 1 R/o Village Bimori, Police Station- Palari, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
4 - Minor Krishna Banjare S/o Late Shri Ranjeet Banjare Aged About 1
Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Satya
Banjare Appellant No. 1 R/o Village Bimori, Police Station- Palari, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Bhupendra Singh Banjare S/o Not Mentioned R/o Satyam Vihar
Coloney Gurukul School Raipura Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Maruti Car Bearing Registration
No. C G./04/lc/3215)
2 - The Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Company Limited Through
Divisional Office, Mowa, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of
Vehicle Maruti Car Bearing Registration No. C. G./04/lc/3215)
... Respondents
For Appellants : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : None.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate with
Mr. Gagan Mishra, Advocate.
Digitally signed
by HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2026.10.28
16:31:26
+0530

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order o n Board
/ 10 27 / 2026
1. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the
th
award dated 02.11.2022 passed by the 11 Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Motor
Accident Claim Case No. 400/2018, 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. 2,00,000/-) of the
Insurance Company under the policy.
2. The case of the appellants, in brief, is that on 16.01.2017, Ranjeet
Banjare was driving his Maruti car No. CG-04-LC-3215 slowly on his
left side. Near Village Bhandarpuri, the vehicle lost control and
collided with a tree, resulting in grievous injuries and the death of
Ranjeet Banjare/driver. The Arang police station registered a report of
the accident. Since the driver had died in the accident, the case had
been closed.
3. The legal heirs 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. 13,00,000/- for the death of Ranjeet
Banjare (aged about 32 years) in a motor accident on 16.01.2017.
Upon due consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car
bearing registration No. CG-04-LC-3215 by its driver (who was also
deceased). The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 1, Bhupendra
Singh Banjare (brother of the deceased), and insured by respondent
No. 2, the Insurance Company. The Tribunal further held that the
evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was neither an
employee of the vehicle owner nor driving the vehicle in the course of

3
employment, nor did his status qualify as that of a third party. On
the date of the accident (16.01.2017), the vehicle was insured under
Ex. D-1 (Insurance Policy) with respondent No. 2. Defence witness
Satish Kumar Katre acknowledged that premium was collected for a
paid driver under the policy, but clarified that the deceased was not a
paid driver. A perusal of Ex. D-1 reveals that under the package
policy, a liability limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) was
provided for the owner-cum-driver. Since the deceased was not an
employee of his brother and was driving the vehicle himself, his
status is like to that of the owner. Consequently, a compensation of
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) has been awarded to the
claimants/appellants under the said policy.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would
submit that the application filed by the claimants under Section 163-
A of M.V. Act would be maintainable as the policy issued by the
insurance company is of Package Policy. The compensation awarded
by the claims tribunal is on the lower side, which needs to be
enhanced. As such, 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 impugned award and submitted that since the
deceased himself was driving the vehicle, he would not come within
the category of a third party. The application filed by the legal heirs of
the deceased under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, for compensation
on account of injury/death of the owner of the vehicle, would not be
maintainable. He further submits that the liability of the insurance
company will be only contractual liability under the policy. As such,
the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs,

4
which is contractual liability under the policy and risk covered for the
owner/driver.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the Tribunal including award impugned.
7. In the case in hand, the deceased was not a third party to the
offending vehicle/motorcycle but was the driver 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. 2,00,000/- towards coverage of the risk of the
owner/driver.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any basis for
enhancement of compensation. Hence, the appeal, being devoid of
any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H. L. Sahu