Can’t Claim Compensation From Insurance Company When Deceased Himself Drove Negligently & Was Solely Responsible For Accident: Madras High Court

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court was filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The Single Bench of Justice R. Poornima observed, “When a person borrows a vehicle from its owner and drives it, he steps into the shoes of the owner. In the present case, the deceased himself drove negligently and was solely responsible for the accident. Therefore, he cannot claim compensation from the Insurance Company, as he does not fall within the category of third party.”

Advocate J.S.Murali represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2009 when the deceased was driving a Toyota Qualis Car belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent. The vehicle capsized and met with an accident, as a result of which, the deceased sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the occurrence, he was taken to the Hospital where he later succumbed to the injuries. An FIR was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the IPC. The petitioner had filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs 3,93,500 for the death of her husband. It was claimed that the deceased was a driver earning Rs 3,000 per month, and he was the only breadwinner of the family.

The Insurance Company claimed that the occurrence in this case occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver, who was the deceased, and no claim could be entertained under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the driver's own negligence. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 3,93,500 together with interest and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same. Thus, the Appellant Insurance Company approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another(2020) wherein it has been held that claim petition under Section 163-A is not maintainable by the borrower/permissive user of the vehicle against the owner and/or insurer of the said vehicle, as such, the borrower/permissive user steps into the shoes of the owner, and the owner cannot both be the claimant and recipient.

It was further noticed that in the FIR, it was recorded that the vehicle was driven by the deceased himself, and he was solely responsible for the negligent driving that caused the accident. Further, the claimant had not lodged any complaint disputing that her husband was not responsible for the accident. She admitted during the trial that it was the deceased alone who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

“It has been proved that the vehicle belonged to the deceased’s brother and that the deceased borrowed the same. He drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident. Once he borrowed the vehicle from the lawful owner, he stepped into the shoes of the owner, therefore, he is not entitled to maintain any claim for compensation”, it added.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Bench held that the appellant insurance company was entitled to get back the deposited amount before the Tribunal.

Cause Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Annalakshmi (Case No.: CMA.(MD)No.1866 of 2013)

Click here to read/download Order