Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/935/2026 of RAJKUMARI NISHAD Vs RIKHIRAM SINHA on 29 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 935 of 2026 1 - Rajkumari Nishad W/o Late Yogesh Kumar Nishad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dumarpali, Tahsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) (Claimant) 2 - Darji Nishad S/o Late Yogesh Kumar Nishad Aged About 4
CGHC010140222026
2026:CGHC:42555
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 935 of 2026
1 - Rajkumari Nishad W/o Late Yogesh Kumar Nishad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dumarpali, Tahsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) (Claimant)
2 - Darji Nishad S/o Late Yogesh Kumar Nishad Aged About 4
Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Rajkumari Nishad, R/o Village Dumarpali, Tahsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) (Claimant)
3 - Bhojram Nishad S/o Late Yogesh Kumar Nishad Aged About 2 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Rajkumari Nishad, R/o Village Dumarpali, Tahsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) (Claimant)
4 - Ghasnin Bai W/o Narayan Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dumarpali, Tahsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (CG) (Claimant)
... Appellant(s)
versus
Rikhiram Sinha S/o Chovaram Sinha Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Dumarpali, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (CG)
(Owner Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. C G- 06- G B- 4275)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants
: Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent
: Mr. Amitabh Verma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
30/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
3. Heard on admission.
4. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, calling in question the legality and correctness of the award dated 02.08.2025 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Claim Case No.23/2022, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of the death of Yogesh Kumar Nishad in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 06 GB 4275, involved in the accident, was owned by respondent Rikhiram Sinha and was not insured. The deceased had taken the said motorcycle from its owner and was himself driving it at the time of the accident. Thus, the deceased was held to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550, as well as other judgments, the Tribunal held that the legal representatives of the deceased were not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed.
6. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ningamma (supra), and subsequently in Ramkhiladi (supra), has categorically held that where the deceased was himself driving a vehicle which he had borrowed from its owner and the accident occurred without the involvement of any other motor vehicle, the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Consequently, the legal representatives of such deceased cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the said vehicle.
7. In the present case, the accident occurred on 18.05.2020. The motorcycle involved in the accident was owned by respondent Rikhiram Sinha and was not insured. The deceased had taken the said motorcycle from its owner and was himself driving the same at the time of the accident. It is also not in dispute that the accident did not involve any other vehicle. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the deceased would be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased cannot maintain a claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the said motorcycle.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has committed no error, either of law or on facts, in dismissing the claim petition. No ground warranting interference with the impugned award is made out.
9. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE
Khatai