Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Order Date: 10/09/2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellants – Kanhaiyadas Mahant (father) and his wife Gurwaribai Mahant, daughter Chanchal Mahant, and minor daughter Tuleshwari Mahant (legal heirs of the deceased Harisdas Mahant alias Mintudas). Respondents – Krishna Auto (proprietor Vikas Agrawal) as owner of the motorcycle and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (insurance company).
- Nature of Proceeding: Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 02‑Dec‑2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sakti, Janjgir‑Champa, which dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 163‑A of the Motor Vehicles Act for death compensation.
- Background: The deceased, Harisdas Mahant (≈21 years), was employed as a labourer by Krishna Auto. On 24‑Oct‑2019, at the employer’s direction, he rode a Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle (Reg. No. CG‑11‑AE‑7753) to the railway station. The motorcycle suffered a mechanical fault on the return journey, leading to an accident. He sustained grievous injuries, was taken to Community Health Centre, Sakti, then referred to District Hospital, Janjgir, and died near Champa while being transported.
- Claim Details: The legal heirs claimed Rs 22,09,400 as compensation under Section 163‑A. The Tribunal held the accident resulted from a mechanical fault of the motorcycle owned by Krishna Auto and dismissed the claim, stating the petition was not maintainable.
- Arguments: Appellants argued the Tribunal erred because the motorcycle was insured by the respondent insurer and a technical fault existed, warranting compensation. Respondent 1 (Krishna Auto) supported the Tribunal’s dismissal.
- Legal Precedent Cited: Supreme Court decisions in Ramkhiladi & Another v. United India Insurance Co. (2020 2 SCC 550) and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009 13 SCC 710) were relied upon. The Court held that Section 163‑A does not apply when the owner of the vehicle is involved in the accident, as the deceased steps into the shoes of the owner.
- Application of Precedent: The Court observed that the deceased was the rider/driver, not a third‑party, and that no premium had been paid for driver or owner risk coverage under the insurance policy (Ex.D‑1, NAW‑1). Consequently, the claim under Section 163‑A was deemed non‑maintainable.
Final Outcome
- The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit; the claim petition filed under Section 163‑A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not maintainable.
- No order as to costs.
Topics: Legal Dispute, Motor Vehicle Compensation, Insurance