CHANDAN KUMAR vs ASIF BEG

1

CGHC010404912026 2026:CGHC:45532
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2418 of 2026
1 - Chandan Kumar S/o Jainarayan Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 601
Mahamaya Apartment, Panchsheel Nagar East, Near Jyoti School, Charauda Bhilai, District
Durg Chhattisgarh.
2 - Kavita Yadav W/o Chandan Kumar Aged About 42 Years (Wrongly Mention D/o In
Impugned Order) R/o House No. 601 Mahamaya Apartment, Panchsheel Nagar East, Near
Jyoti School, Charauda Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
3 - Archi D/o Chandan Kumar Aged About 19 Years R/o House No. 601 Mahamaya
Apartment, Panchsheel Nagar East, Near Jyoti School, Charauda Bhilai, District Durg
Chhattisgarh ... Appellants
versus
1 - Asif Beg S/o Alam Beg Address No. 1 Quarter No. 199, Police Line Power House Camp
02, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh Address No. 2 Through M L Tikariha, H.M.T. Square,
Handipara Raipur, Police Station - Azad Chowk, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner of Car
No. C.G. 04 H.B. 0604).
2 - S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Officer In Charge S.B.I. General Insurance Co.
Ltd. 4th Floor, Pujari Chamber Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Car No. C.G. 04 H.B. 0604) ... Respondents
For the appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the respondents : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(28.10.2026)

2
1. Heard on I.A.No. 1/2026 filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
There is delay of 60 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by
appellant no.1, delay of 60 days is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is
allowed.
Heard on admission.
2. The claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 08.05.2026 passed
by the learned XI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur
(C.G.) in Claim Case No. 814.2023 whereby the application filed u/s
164 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed as not maintainable.
3. Brief facts of the case pleaded by the claimants are on the date of
accident 22.05.2023 deceased Ishan Kumar was driving the Car
bearing No.C.G. 04-HB-0604 owned by one Asif Baig (respondent
no.1). On the way, the vehicle lost the control and hit the road side
divider, due to which, he fell down from the Car and sustained
grievous injuries. He was immediately brought to the Hospital where
he died on 24.05.2023 during treatment. Appellants 1 & 2 are parents
and appellant no.3 is brother of deceased. They being legal heirs have
filed claim application u/s 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would
submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim
petition filed under Section 164 of the M.V. Act because the
motorcycle was insured with the respondent No. 2. As such, the
appeal may be allowed, and proper compensation may be awarded in
favour of the claimants.

3
5. At para 15 of the impugned award the learned Tribunal discussed the
evidence of claimant-witness Kavita Yadav and observed that no
document was produced to show that deceased was employed under
the control of respondent no.1, the owner of the offending Car. On the
basis of Panchnama (Ex.P-6), it has further observed that at the time
of accident, deceased was coming from Amity University to Raipur
along with his friends and he himself was driving the Car. The
deceased was driving the vehicle in the capacity of owner of vehicle, as
such he has stepped into the shoes of respondent no.1 and the
deceased does not fall in the category of third party. Having thus
considered, the Tribunal held that the claim petition filed under
Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal heirs of the
deceased is not maintainable and dismissed the claim application.
6. In the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India
Insurance Company and another , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550
Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that when a person borrows a vehicle
from its owner and meets with an accident while driving it, he legally
steps into the position of the owner. In the said case, the Supreme
Court, relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma
v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, 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 owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved.
7. In the case on hand, the deceased was driving the Car which was
borrowed from respondent no.1 and met with accident by hitting
against a road side divider. Therefore, he does not fall in the category
of third party as he stepped into the shows of the owner.
8. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

4
the above referred matters, the Tribunal has rightly held that the
claim petition filed under Section 164 of the Act, 1988 is not
maintainable and rejected the same. Therefore, I do not find any
merit in this appeal warranting interference in the impunged award.
9. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at the
admission stage.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao