VINITA PABEREN KUJUR vs SUSHIL KUMAR KUJUR

1

CGHC010117472024 2026:CGHC:39032
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 761 of 2024
1 - Vinita Paberen Kujur Wife Of Sushil Kumar Kujur Aged About 48 Years
R/o B-232 Ujjaval Nagar, NTPC Sipat, P.S. Sipat, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Sushil Kumar Kujur S/o Late Samual Kujur Aged About 58 Years R/o
B-232 Ujjaval Nagar, Ntpc Sipat, P.S. Sipat, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.
2 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch
Manager, 3rd Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Beside I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vyapar Vihar,
Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order o n Board
/ 09 03 / 2026
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, application for condonation of delay.
2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the
application, I.A. No. 01/2024 is allowed and the delay of 240 days in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. This is claimant’s appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the
th
award dated 09.05.2023 passed by the 6 Additional Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.
950/2021 whereby the claim application filed under Section 164 of
Digitally signed
by HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2026.09.05
15:06:55
+0530

2
the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant/appellant has been dismissed
by allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read
with Section 169 of MV Act by the insurance company/respondent
No. 2.
5. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the appellant/claimant filed
a claim petition under Section 164 of the M.V. Act for the death of his
son Raj Kujur, who succumbed to his injuries sustained in a motor
accident dated 21.03.2021, when the deceased was riding/driving a
motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-66-M-0410 owned by his
father/respondent No. 1 – Sushil Kumar Kujur.
6. The Tribunal observed that the claim petition was filed on 25.06.2021
by the appellant, Smt. Vinita Poberan Kujur, seeking compensation
for the death of her son, the deceased Raj Kujur, in a motor accident
involving a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-14-M-0410 owned
by the deceased's father, Sushil Kumar Kujur. The Tribunal further
held that the claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is not maintainable, as the said section providing for 'No Fault
Liability' came into force only with effect from 01.04.2022 and was
not applicable on the date of filing the petition. Furthermore, even if
the claim is considered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, which provides a structured formula for compensation, it
remains unmaintainable. As per the settled law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court, where a person
drives a vehicle owned by his father, he steps into the shoes of the
owner. Consequently, the legal heirs of such a deceased
driver/borrower are not entitled to claim compensation under Section
163-A against the owner or insurer. Since the deceased, Raj Kujur,
was driving the motorcycle registered in the name of his father
(Respondent No. 1), he had stepped into the shoes of the vehicle's

3
owner. Therefore, the claim petition seeking compensation on the
basis of 'No Fault Liability' under Section 163-A of the Act is also not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit
that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition
filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act because the motorcycle was
insured with the respondent No. 2. The learned claims tribunal failed
to appreciate that the provisions of order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not
attracted in the proceedings of claim case. As such, the appeal may
be allowed, and proper compensation may be awarded in favour of
the claimant.
8. 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 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.
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

4
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.”
9. In the case in hand, the deceased was not a third party to the
offending vehicle/motorcycle but was the rider/driver. Furthermore,
looking to the vehicle policy, it has come to light that no premium
amount has been paid to the insurance company for risk coverage of
driver or owner.
10. 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 appellant, on its face, is devoid
of merit and the same is accordingly liable to be and is hereby
dismissed at admission stage itself.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H. L. Sahu