Parents’ Section 163A Claim Fails After Son’s Solo Crash On Borrowed Motorcycle Without Owner-Driver Cover: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Denial

The appellants, parents of Manish Kumar Lahare, challenged the award dated 26 July 2024 dismissing their claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for his death in a motorcycle accident.

The Tribunal found that Manish was driving the motorcycle owned by respondent No. 1 with the owner’s permission, that no other vehicle was involved, and that the policy did not cover the risk of the owner or driver. It held that Manish had stepped into the owner’s shoes and dismissed the claim.

The High Court condoned the 170-day delay in filing the appeal.

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was the basis of the compensation claim, and Section 173 provided for the appeal.

Relying on Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, and Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co., (2020) 2 SCC 550, the Court applied the rule that a person driving a vehicle borrowed from its owner, where the accident occurs without the involvement of another vehicle, steps into the owner’s shoes and cannot claim as a third party against the owner and insurer.

Where the policy does not cover the owner’s or driver’s risk, the deceased’s legal representatives are not entitled to compensation on that basis.

Manish was driving respondent No. 1’s motorcycle when the accident occurred, and no other vehicle was involved. The policy did not cover the risk of the owner or driver because no premium had been paid for that coverage.

Applying Ningamma and Ramkhiladi, the Court held that Manish had stepped into the owner’s shoes and was not a third party; his legal representatives therefore could not recover compensation from the owner and insurer under Section 163A.

The Tribunal had committed no legal or factual error warranting interference.

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.