Simbal Singh vs Amarjit Singh & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
% Reserved on : 12 May 2026
st
Pronounced on : 01 July 2026
nd
Uploaded on : 02 July 2026

+ MAC.APP. 532/2025
SIMBAL SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Varun Sarin, Ms. Parul Dutta,
Advocates.
versus

AMARJIT SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Dr. Amit George, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul,
Advocates for respondent no.1
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT


ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/claimant assailing the
th
impugned judgment dated 19 April 2025 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘ MACT/Tribunal ’ )
in MACT No. 224/2022 by which the claim petition of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 1 of 51

appellant/claimant was dismissed. Mr. Varun Sarin , counsel appears on
behalf of appellant/claimant; Mr. Sameer Nandwani , counsel appears on
nd
behalf of respondent no.2/insurer. By order dated 22 August 2025 the
Court appointed Dr. Amit George , Advocate as Amicus Curiae in the
matter to assist the Court.
2. The principal issue and contention before the Court relates to
whether, in circumstances where the driver of a motor vehicle is neither
a paid driver nor the owner and the vehicle is insured with a
Comprehensive/Package policy, would the insurer be liable or whether it
would amount to contractual liability not amenable to the jurisdiction of
MACT.
3. This issue arose in context of deceased, who was driving the
vehicle insured with respondent no.2, being neither the paid driver nor
the owner of vehicle, but a family member/ son of the owner of vehicle
and the claim was being pressed by his legal heirs basis that the deceased
was an occupant/ third party and would, therefore, be covered under third
party insurance.
4. Appellant/Claimant is the mother of deceased/ Udey Singh alias
Uday Jit Singh . He was driving an Innova car bearing registration
number DL-8C-AB-3069 (hereinafter, ‘ vehicle ’). Respondent no.
1/ Amarjit Singh was the registered owner of vehicle and also the father
of deceased and husband of appellant/claimant. Claim has therefore,
been filed by appellant/claimant on behalf of her deceased son, who was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 2 of 51

driving the vehicle registered in the name of respondent no.1-father,
claiming insurance as an occupant/third party.
5. The collision took place when a truck (hereinafter, ‘ offending
vehicle/truck ’), allegedly overtook the Innova car at high speed and hit it
on its rear right side. Because of the impact, the Innova car first hit an
Alto car and then dashed against a wall on the service road. Deceased
was declared ‘ brought dead ’ by doctors at the hospital. It was registered
as a hit and run case, since, the offending vehicle could not be traced.
Therefore, the claim was made against respondent no.2/insurer of the
Innova car.
6. Mr. Sameer Nandwani , counsel for respondent no.2/insurer,
submitted that the policy cover provided by them for Innova car was a
Comprehensive/Package Policy which covered not only basic third-party
liability, but personal accident cover for owner-driver and additional
accident cover for seven passengers.
7. Issue before the Court was therefore two-fold. One , whether
deceased, who had borrowed the vehicle, stepped into the shoes of the
registered owner and would, therefore, be within the ambit of an
“ owner/driver ”. That being so, the claim would fall in the category of
personal accident cover for owner-driver and, therefore, would have to
be satisfied through contractual policy and not through statutory liability
under a third-party cover. Two , whether deceased would qualify as a
third party or an occupant and be entitled to receive compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘ MV Act ’).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 3 of 51

8. In the impugned judgment, MACT placed reliance upon New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC
417, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC
698, Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13
SCC 710 and decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Ravi Prakash Mishra & Anr . 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7081. MACT held
that contractual liability was not enforceable under the purview of
MACT, therefore the claim petition was dismissed and
appellant/claimant was left to approach the competent forum.
Submissions on behalf of appellant
9. Mr. Varun Sarin , counsel for appellant/claimant submitted that
there are certain undisputed aspects of the case, which could be
delineated as under:
(i) Death of Sh. Udey Singh had taken place due to negligence of the
offending truck.
(ii) Offending truck could not be traced or identified and no details
were given by appellant/claimant.
(iii) The present claim was made under Section 166 of MV Act against
respondent no.2/insurer of the Innova car.
(iv) The insurance policy was a Comprehensive/Package Policy with
personal accident cover and third-party liability.
nd
(v) The accident had taken place on 2 January 2022, prior to the MV
st
(Amendment) Act, 2019 coming into effect from 1 April 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 4 of 51

and since the offending vehicle could not be identified, at best a
claim under Section 163-A of MV Act could be made.
10. On this basis, the fundamental assertion made by Mr. Sarin ,
counsel for appellant/claimant, was the legal distinction between an Act
Policy and a Comprehensive/Package Policy. He contended that, since
there was a personal accident cover for owner-driver, deceased being the
driver of vehicle was covered under the insurance policy and
compensation could be awarded under the purview of MACT. He stated
that deceased should be treated as a third-party occupant and would
therefore, be covered under third-party liability.
11. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Anr. (2013) 1 SCC 731, to
state that MACT had failed to appreciate the distinction between an Act
Policy and a Comprehensive/Package Policy.
11.1. In this case, one, Balakrishnan met with an accident while
travelling in a car belonging to another party, when it dashed against a
bullock cart. He filed a claim under Section 140, 147 and 166 of the MV
Act before the MACT, claiming compensation from the Insurance
Company as well as owner of the vehicle. Claim was resisted by the
Insurance Company basis that he could not be treated as a third party and
the insurance policy taken by the Company, who owned the car, did not
cover an occupant of the vehicle, but only covered the owner for a
limited quantum.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 5 of 51

11.2. While, MACT granted compensation to injured by treating him as
a third party and holding the Insurance Company liable, High Court
treated owner of the vehicle to be liable and held that, since injured was
only an occupant of the car, Insurance Company was liable to indemnify.
11.3. On this basis, Supreme Court noticed a distinction between “ Act
Only Policy ” and “ Comprehensive/Package Policy ”. Reference was
made to decision of this Court in Yashpal Luthra v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd ., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4291 which recorded
evidence of the competent authority of Tariff Advisory Committee
(‘ TAC ’) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (‘ IRDA ’)
th
in the context of circular dated 16 November 2009 issued to all
Insurance Companies. The circular was issued with respect to liability of
Insurance Companies of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and occupants
in a private car under the “ Comprehensive/Package Policy ”.
11.4. The circular stated that liability of an insurer with respect to an
occupant travelling in a private car and as a pillion rider on a two-
wheeler was covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. IRDA
stated before the High Court that TAC had issued instructions to all
Insurance Companies to cover the pillion rider of a two-wheeler under
“ Comprehensive/Package Policy ”. It was also admitted that
Comprehensive Policy is presently called Package Policy. Observations
of this Court in Yashpal Luthra ( supra ) were extracted by the Supreme
Court as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 6 of 51

“ 27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the
comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers
a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a
private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle
is covered under a comprehensive / package policy,
there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to
go into the question whether the Insurance Company is
liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion
rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private
car. In fact, in view of the TAC‟s directives and those
of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and
ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was
done in the present case .”
(emphasis added)
11.5. Therefore, Supreme Court held that there was no doubt that a
‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy’ would cover the liability of insurer for
payment of compensation for an occupant in a car. But an ‘ Act Only
Policy ’ stands on a different footing, as it will not cover third-party risk
of an occupant in a car. Therefore, decision of the High Court was set
aside and the matter was remitted back to Tribunal to scrutinize the
insurance policy from a proper perspective and for re-adjudication of the
matter.
12. Reliance was then placed on United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Suraj Kala & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine All 3729 and Valiben
Laxmanbhai Thakore & Ors. v. Kandla Dock Labour Board & Anr.
2021 (4) GLH 77 to contend that once additional premium has been paid,
liability of the Insurance Company cannot be restricted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 7 of 51

12.1. The Allahabad High Court in Suraj Kala (supra), held that in
cases where the insurance policy is merely an ‘ Act Only Policy’ and no
additional premium is paid, liability of insurer would remain limited to
the statutory extent. However, once additional premium is paid for
covering a wider risk, liability of Insurance Company becomes unlimited
and it shall be liable to satisfy the award. Court drew a distinction
between limited statutory liability and enhanced contractual liability
arising out of the payment of additional premium.
12.2. In Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (supra) , the Gujarat High Court
held that where additional premium is paid by the owner and same has
been accepted, liability of Insurance Company stands extended under the
MV Act. In facts of the case, insurance policy covered the risk of driver
and cleaner, and additional premium was paid. Therefore, the coverage
of risk was extended. Insurance Company cannot be absolved from
liability by contending that claimants were not entitled to compensation,
irrespective of negligence on the part of driver.

13. Mr. Sarin , counsel for appellant/claimant, submitted that, since the
claim petition had been filed under Section 166 of the MV Act and not
under Section 163-A, the principle of driver stepping into the shoes of
the owner shall not be applicable to the case herein. Therefore, deceased
would fall in the category of third party . In order to buttress his
submissions, Mr. Sarin , relied upon decisions of various High Courts
and Supreme Court.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 8 of 51

Decisions of Supreme Court
14. In Manjusha & Ors. v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1512, a recent decision by the Supreme Court, the
Court was dealing with a case where deceased driver was brother of the
owner of vehicle and was travelling in the car, along with family
members. High Court restricted compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- by
treating the claim as one of contractual liability and not imposing
statutory liability. Supreme Court set aside the finding and restored the
award passed by the Tribunal. It was noted that the case was not about
statutory liability, but contractual liability of a personal accident cover
which formed the basis of the claim. The order of High Court was set
aside on the basis that limited liability had not been claimed by
Insurance Company, either before the Tribunal or in the appeal before
the High Court, therefore, the Tribunal’s award of compensation was
upheld.
15. Further, the Supreme Court in its decision in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bopanna & Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 540
rejected the contention of Insurance Company that the deceased, an
employee, travelling in a car would not fall within the category of a
third-party. It was held that deceased was neither the insurer nor the
insured, therefore, he would clearly fall within the ambit of a third party .
However, it was noted that this was not a case where deceased was
driving the vehicle, instead he was an occupant and the car was being
driven by someone else. Claim was covered by the clause in insurance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 9 of 51

policy and that it could not be excepted by virtue of the provisions of
Section 147(1) of MV Act.
Decisions of High Courts
16. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ravi Prakash Mishra &
Anr. ( supra ), a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that, while, the
Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation for
death suffered by owner or borrower or driver under Sections 163 or 166
of MV Act in an ‘ Act Only Policy’ , but the position will be different if
the vehicle is covered under a ‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy ’. Court,
however, noted that Insurance Company shall be liable to meet such a
contractual liability.
17. In Ramchand v. Ghanshyam & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine Bom
762, Bombay High Court was considering an argument raised by the
insurer that the person driving a borrowed vehicle steps into shoes of the
owner and therefore, could not maintain a claim. Court held that the
principle of a driver stepping into shoes of the owner is applicable only
in respect to claims filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, but not
applicable in case of claims filed under Section 166. Therefore, the
person not being the insurer or insured is a third party and the claim
would be covered under insurance policy. Not covering such persons
would defeat the benevolent nature of legislation.
18. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manju Singh & Ors.
2019 SCC OnLine All 5125, the Allahabad High Court noted that where
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 10 of 51

policy of the vehicle is a ‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy ’, deceased
who was driving the car, would also be an occupant and the risk of such
occupants stands covered under the insurance policy. Reliance was
placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Balakrishnan ( supra ).
19. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in New India Assurance
Company Ltd. v. Durga Prasad Bhusahal & Ors. 2017:DHC:4815 held
that the insurance policy mentioned personal accident cover for owner,
as well as, driver, therefore, the contention put forth by Insurance
Company that the insurance policy would only apply when the owner
himself was driving the vehicle, was rejected.
20. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudha Singh , 2014 SCC
OnLine Pat 78, the Patna High Court observed that deceased died due to
his own negligence, while driving Tata Sumo vehicle and considering
that the insured had paid a higher premium than an ‘ Act Only Policy ’,
insurer has a contractual obligation to cover all possible risks. It was held
that deceased being neither the insured, nor the insurer, he would come
under the purview of third party .
21. In Branch manager National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Master
Suraj Subba & Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine Sikk 53, the Sikkim High Court
held that the expression ‘ driver ’ means any person including, insured,
provided that person holds a valid and effective driving license. It was
held that a person, who is not a party to the contract, will be treated as
third party . Father of the claimant had died in a motor vehicle accident
while driving the vehicle. The claim was resisted by Insurance Company
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 11 of 51

on the ground that it would not be covered under the meaning of third
party . The Court held that other than the contracting party to the
insurance policy, the expression “ third party ” would include everyone
else. This was in context of the policy which was a Package Policy and
not an Act Only Policy .
Submissions on behalf of Amicus Curiae
22. At the outset, Dr. George , Amicus Curiae submitted that the
question of law involved is pending consideration before a larger Bench
of the Supreme Court in Mohana Krishnan S. v. K. Balasubramaniyam
th
& Ors. SLP(C) No.3433 of 2020 and vide order dated 25 August 2022,
it was observed that, “ the question as to whether the third party includes
all other persons other than the insured, who is the first party and the
insurer, who is the second party. Therefore, all other persons who are
neither the insured nor the insurer will be third party and will be
covered by the Act Only policy .” However, it is noted that in the facts of
the present case, the insurance policy is not an ‘ Act Only Policy’ , but
includes additional premium, therefore, will be considered as a
‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy .’
23. Dr. George, A micus Curiae assisted the Court in traversing the
salient provisions of the MV Act particularly on the following points:
i. Scheme of the Act, specifically, Chapter XI , covers ‘ Insurance of
motor vehicles against third party risks ’, introduced in the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 and was interpreted in a liberal manner after
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 12 of 51

the enactment of the MV Act, 1988. Third parties , who are
otherwise not signatories to the insurance contract, are protected
by such contract and are entitled to recover, as long as there is an
insurance policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident.
ii. Section 146 of the MV Act, proscribes use of a motor vehicle in a
public space, unless there exists an insurance policy against third
party risk that complies with requirements of Chapter XI of MV
Act. Effectively, it mandates third-party insurance for all vehicles
operating in public places. Third parties can claim damages from
owner of the vehicle, which is not dependent upon the financial
condition of the driver who caused the injuries.
iii. Section 147 of the MV Act sets out requirements of such policies
and the limits of liability, which forms the bedrock of what is
termed as ‘ Act Only Policy ’ under the MV Act. This provision
does not require Insurance Company to assume risk for death or
bodily injury to owner of the vehicle. However, this provision
covers death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service
vehicle arising out of use in a public space, but excludes liability
arising out of and in the course of employment, except those which
arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Amicus
Curiae highlighted that within the precinct of Section 147 of MV
Act, it has to be seen whether deceased falls within the meaning of
a third party covered under the ‘ Act Only Policy ’ or whether the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 13 of 51

deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and is, therefore, not
a third party under the ‘ Act Only Policy ’.
iv. Section 149 of MV Act ( Post Amendment Section 150 ) inures to
the benefit of third parties and enables them to obtain recoverable
amounts expeditiously, and provides that insurer must satisfy the
decree or award of the Court or Tribunal on claims by third parties
in respect of such third-party risk “ as if he were the judgment
debtor ”.
v. Under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of MV Act, Insurance Company can
defend a claim filed under Section 163-A ( post Amendment
Section 164 ) or Section 166 of MV Act by citing breach of policy
conditions by owner of vehicle.
24. Amicus Curiae pointed out that there is no contractual relationship
between the Insurance Company and the third party and it is only the
deeming fiction under Sections 147 and 149 ( post amendment Section
150 ) that create liabilities and obligations relatable to third parties.
Victim of a road accident or legal heirs of deceased can proceed either
under Section 163A or Section 166 of the MV Act and burden of proving
negligence in a claim made under Section 166 of MV Act has been
crystallised as a principle by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 428.
Distinction has to be made between statutory liability under the
provisions, as noted above, opposed to contractual liability and the
respective fora under which they must be agitated.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 14 of 51

25. It was pointed out that though, the MV Act deserves a liberal
construction, one cannot travel beyond the scope of the statute by
extending benefits to those who are not covered by it. Principles of
purposive construction must be applied while interpreting these
provisions in the Act. In other words, an ‘ Act Only Policy’ falls within
the confines of the MV Act and vests jurisdiction with the MACT.
However, consumer courts are the competent fora to adjudicate upon
contractual liabilities. While there are three parties before the MACT-
insurer, insured and the victim, before the consumer protection forum,
the consumer simply claims compensation from the insurer for
consideration paid under the policy.
26. Amicus Curiae made a persuasive argument on ‘ fetishizing ’
specialised jurisdiction like the MACT by gradually over-extending their
remit. He submitted that, this weakens the ability of Tribunals like
MACT to disburse swift compensation. He argued against undue
enlargement of the remit of MACT to cover contractual disputes as also
the risk of making it an omnibus quasi-adjudicatory body . He, therefore,
submitted that special legislation cannot be allowed to extend beyond
what is expressly stated in the Act.
27. Elaborating on this issue of fetishization , reference was made to
the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
(‘ MSMED Act ’) which is a specialized forum for adjudicating disputes
pertaining to sale of goods or services. However, it is not to be extended
for damages or claims of compensation even those arising out of a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 15 of 51

contractual relationship between the parties. Telecom Disputes
Settlement Appellant Tribunal (‘ TDSAT ’), which is a forum to
adjudicate disputes specified in the Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India Act, 1997 (‘ TRAI Act ’), also does not extend its jurisdiction to the
appointment of an Arbitrator in an Arbitration Petition.
28. Amicus Curiae , drew attention to a matter before this Court, Geeta
Anand v. Tanya Arjun and Another 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2327, where
a similar submission on jurisdiction and fetishization of specialized
jurisdiction was made in the context of the specialized adjudicatory
bodies set up under the Family Courts Act, 1984. Claims such as seeking
possession or injunctive relief were not to be placed before the Family
Courts, considering that they cease to exercise jurisdiction, as
jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted.
29. In order to assert the difference between statutory liability and
contractual liability, Amicus Curiae drew attention of this Court to the
following judgments:

(i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and Ors. , (2000) 3 SCC
195: Supreme Court emphasized that principles governing
ordinary insurance contracts are different from insurance contracts
involving motor vehicles.
(ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors ,
( supra ): Factual matrix of the case involved son of the insured,
who was driving the motorcycle met with an accident and died as a
result of it. Claim petition was filed by the owner of insured
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 16 of 51

vehicle and was resisted by Insurance Company, who stated that
due to the relationship between deceased and owner i.e. father and
son, deceased could not be considered as a third party. Considering
the provisions in Chapters XI and XII of the MV Act, particularly
Section 146, 147 of the MV Act, the Supreme Court noted that,
“ The provisions of the Act, therefore, provide for two types of
insurance - one statutory in nature and the other contractual in
nature . Whereas, the Insurance Company is bound to compensate
owner or driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or
suffers injury as a result of an accident, in cases, involving owner
of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional
payment is required to be paid for covering their life and
property .” Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
“13. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is
governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act.
The terms of the policy as also the quantum of the
premium payable for insuring the vehicle in
question depends not only upon the carrying
capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for
which the same was being used and the extent of
the risk covered thereby. By taking an `act policy',
the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory
obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act.
The liability of the insurer is either statutory or
contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends
to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If
additional risks are sought to be covered,
additional premium has to be paid. If the
contention of the learned counsel is to be
accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 17 of 51

the Insurance Act become otiose. By reason of
such an interpretation the insurer would be liable
to cover risk of not only a third party but also
others who would not otherwise come within the
purview thereof. It is one thing to say that the life
is uncertain and the same is required to be
covered, but it is another thing to say that we must
read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not
contemplated by the Act. It is not for the court,
unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to
consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise
the provisions of the Act read with the provisions
of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational.
14. Only because driving of a motor vehicle
may cause accident involving loss of life and
property not only of a third party but also the
owner of the vehicle and the insured vehicle itself,
different provisions have been made in
the Insurance Act as also the Act laying down
different types of insurance policies. The amount
of premium required to be paid for each of the
policy is governed by the Insurance Act. A
statutory regulatory authority fixes the norms and
the guidelines.
15. Keeping in view the aforementioned
Parliamentary object, let us consider the fact of
the present case so as to consider as to whether
the insurer is liable to pay the amount of
compensation in relation to the accident occurred
by use of the vehicle which was being driven by
the son of the insured. We may, for the said
purpose, notice certain decisions covering
different categories of the claims. In United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, [ (2006) 4
SCC 404 ] this Court considered the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as also 1988 Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 18 of 51

and inter alia opined that the insurance company
would have no liability towards the injuries
suffered by the deceased who was a pillion rider,
as the insurance policy was a statutory policy
which did not cover the gratuitous passenger.”
(emphasis added)
Therefore, Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company was not
liable to pay compensation and relied upon the decision in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut , (2007) 3 SCC 700,
wherein distinction between a statutory policy and a contractual policy
was made out.
th th
30. Amicus Curiae also made reference to the 85 Report and 149
Report of Law Commission of India, where the Law Commission made
certain recommendations after examining the legislative intent behind
th
MV Act. Under the 149 Commission Report, the Commission
reaffirmed the clear legislative intent to exclude contractual liability
from compulsory insurance coverage. It recommended that proviso to
Section 147 (1) of MV Act be simplified to declare that “ a policy shall
not be required to cover any contractual liability ”, emphasizing that
contractual risk should remain beyond the scope of protection of MV
Act.
31. Distinction between an ‘ Act Only Policy ’ and a
‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy ’ was also made, as highlighted by the
Supreme Court in Balakrishnan ( supra ). Reference was made to
decision of this Court in Sanjay Sharma v. New India Assurance Co.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 19 of 51

Ltd. and others , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3404, wherein a conceptual
distinction was provided. The aspect of a ‘ Comprehensive/Package
Policy ’ was reiterated in Ravi Prakash Mishra ( supra ) and Yashpal
Luthra ( supra ).
32. In addition to this, reference was made to the decision of High
Court of Madras in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Limited v. Ramesh Babu , 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2164, where a
preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the claim petition before
the MACT depending on the nature of the insurance policy was raised. It
was observed that adjudicatory power of MACT was confined to
statutory policy and could not be invoked from a contractual policy.
33. It was pointed out that while, the term ‘ third party’ has been given
a wide meaning, an ‘ Act Only Policy’ does not cover
occupants/gratuitous passengers or drivers of a private vehicle, unless an
additional premium is paid. It was submitted by Amicus Curiae that third
party under MV Act was not intended to cover driver, occupant and
gratuitous passengers of a private vehicle. The moment a driver borrows
the vehicle for permissive use, he steps into the shoes of the owner and,
therefore, to seek coverage, an additional premium must be paid, but
same cannot be within the definition of a third party .
34. It was highlighted that in the present case, the MACT had
observed that no fault liability under Section 163-A ( now Section 164 ) of
MV Act may have come to the rescue of claimants, since there was no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 20 of 51

requirement to plead negligence. Therefore, claim can be made as a third
party qua the offending vehicle.
35. Reliance was placed on decision of Supreme Court in Ningamma
( supra ), where the Court was dealing with a situation where the deceased
was not the owner of motorcycle and had borrowed it. If it is proved that
driver is the owner, then the owner could not himself be a recipient of
compensation under Section 163-A of MV Act. Therefore, since the
deceased stepped into shoes of the owner, legal representatives are
precluded from raising a claim under Section 163-A of MV Act.
36. Reference made to Sadanand Mukhi ( supra ), a decision rendered
before Ningamma ( supra ), that reflected the consistent position where
driver of a vehicle was held not to be a third party . In Ningamma
( supra ), the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of MV Act and
not under Section 166, where negligence has to be proved.
37. It was therefore asserted that drivers, occupants and gratuitous
passengers are not covered under third-party risk. When an additional
plea has been made to cover the risk, the competent forum is not MACT.
38. Therefore, in the present case, it was submitted that deceased
borrowed the car from respondent no.1/owner of the vehicle, his father,
therefore, deceased could not be considered a third party under Motor
Vehicles Act and cannot seek cover under a ‘ Comprehensive/Package
Policy ’. Insurance Policy provides a personal accident cover only to the
driver-owner, which does not cover the deceased. In any event, it was up
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 21 of 51

to appellant/claimant to seek compensation under a
‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy ’ since additional premium had been
paid, which is a claim to be pursued before the competent forum.
Submissions on behalf of respondent no.2
39. Mr. Nandwani , counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.2/insurer, at the outset, drew attention of this Court to the insurance
policy to contend that the cover was restricted to owner-driver and
deceased-son would not be covered under the personal accident cover.
40. He concurred with the submission put forth by Dr. George,
Amicus Curiae, that MACT is not the competent forum for adjudicating
contractual disputes and the MACT rightly dismissed the claim petition
on that ground.
41. A distinction between the proof of negligence under Section 163-
A and Section 166 of MV Act was drawn to contend that, since in the
present case, the offending vehicle could not be located, no negligence
qua the offending vehicle was established. Therefore, a claim under
Section 166 in that sense, cannot subsist.

Analysis
42. Victim of a motor accident, being an occupant in a vehicle which
has been accidented in a collision with another vehicle can have a claim
for compensation on two fronts:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 22 of 51

43. First , by claiming that they were third parties in an accident due
to negligence of the other vehicle/offending vehicle and, therefore,
owner/driver of the offending vehicle or insurer, in case the vehicle is
insured, would be liable to pay the compensation. This could either be a
claim under Section 166 of MV Act, where negligence has to be proved
and a higher compensation can be awarded or a claim under Section 163-
A of the Act, where only involvement of the offending vehicle is to be
proved, and not negligence. Compensation in case of insured offending
vehicle would be fastened on the insurer of offending vehicle, subject to
other limitations, particularly pleas in defence raised by the Insurance
Company.
44. Second , a claim made by an occupant of a car against the insurer
of the vehicle in which they are travelling can only arise under Section
166 of MV Act, where negligence is alleged on the driver/owner of
vehicle who was driving negligently. The occupant would, therefore,
possibly be a third party qua the owner of vehicle and, therefore, the
insurer of the vehicle in which they are travelling. Such situations arise
where an occupant in a vehicle claims compensation due to negligent
driving of the vehicle, therefore, ultimately transferring the liability on
insurer of the vehicle.
45. Liability under Section 166 of MV Act is based on the tort of
negligence and liability would be on the tortfeasor, following the proof
of negligence. As noted above, negligence is either asserted of driver of
the offending vehicle or against driver of vehicle in which the claimant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 23 of 51

was travelling. In either case, liability would follow proof of negligence
and if the vehicle is insured, it would ultimately have to be covered by
the insurer.
46. In a situation where the offending vehicle is untraced and
negligence cannot be proved against the offending vehicle, the option
would be to file a claim under 163-A of MV Act, which requires only
proof of involvement of the offending vehicle. Even under Section 163-
A (now Section 164) of MV Act, the claim can be sustained against the
insurer of the vehicle, if the accident has arisen out of the use of motor
vehicle, but there is no requirement to establish any wrongful act or
neglect or default on the owner of vehicle.
47. However, in the instant case before this Court, legal representative
of deceased-driver of the vehicle itself seeks compensation, not on the
basis of negligence of offending vehicle, which was untraced, but on
account that he would be a third party /occupant and, therefore, would be
covered under the personal accident cover, as per the
‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy ’ for which additional payment has been
paid by the owner.
48. Evidently, this being a claim under Section 166 of MV Act,
emanating out of a plea of negligence, legal representatives of deceased-
driver cannot claim that he himself was negligent and, therefore, they be
entitled to compensation. This would result in an illogical absurdity and
amount to somebody trying to lift themselves by their own bootstraps.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 24 of 51

49. In this case, the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of
MV Act and, therefore, has to be based on a proof of negligence.
Considering that the offending vehicle was untraced, there was no proof
of negligence of offending vehicle and therefore, the only other
negligence which can be claimed is of the driver of vehicle, which is the
deceased himself.
50. Genesis of the claim would fail on this ground itself, since driver
of the vehicle cannot sever himself from the fact that he was driving the
vehicle and, therefore, any negligence, if at all, would be of himself.
From the perspective of the deceased driver, there cannot be severability
from owner of the vehicle, considering that the driver had borrowed the
vehicle from respondent no.1/owner, in this case being his father and,
therefore, was responsible for driving the vehicle in a diligent manner. If
he did so and another offending vehicle was negligent, the claim has to
be made against the insurer of offending vehicle. If he himself was
negligent in driving the vehicle, the claim can be made by other third
parties who may have sustained injuries or died, due to his negligent
driving. This is where the issue of third party liability comes into
picture.
51. Respondent no.2/insurer of vehicle in which the deceased was
driving can only cover statutory liability for third parties and not the
driver or owner himself. This is the reason why an additional premium is
taken by insurance company in order to create coverage for the owner-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 25 of 51

driver, which in this case was done as part of a ‘ Comprehensive Package
Policy ’.
52. However, the claim made under the insurance policy is not a claim
arising out of negligence of a party, but merely a claim where the risk of
bodily injury or death of owner-driver is covered by the Insurance
Company. This takes the claim into a purely contractual arena, with
insurance policy being the contractual document.
53. Therefore, it is not within the remit of MACT to deal with this,
which is a creature of the statute, but for a consumer court or civil court
to assert to prove that the claim should be satisfied under the four corners
of the contractual policy providing the personal accident cover.
54. To reiterate and emphasize what has been discussed above,
admittedly, claim petition was filed by the appellant/mother of deceased
against respondent no.1/father of deceased and respondent no.2/insurer
under the Comprehensive/Package Policy covering third parties and
occupants of the car.
Section 166 of MV Act and Negligence
55. Reliance was placed on the personal accident cover taken in favour
of owner-driver, which would therefore cover the deceased who was
driving the vehicle. Claim was, however, filed under Section 166 of MV
Act. The logic which forms the basis of a claim filed under Section 166
of the MV Act has been usefully enunciated by the Supreme Court in its
decision in Meena Variyal ( supra ).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 26 of 51

56. Supreme Court categorically states that, “ a third party for whose
benefit the insurance is taken, is therefore entitled to show, when he
moves under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the driver was
negligent in driving the vehicle resulting in the accident; that the owner
was vicariously liable and that the insurance company was bound to
indemnify the owner and consequently, satisfy the award made. ”
57. Claim made by a third party is, therefore, inextricably intertwined
with proof of negligence of the driver of offending vehicle. If that
causation is not established, followed by proof of negligence, the link for
a third party claimant breaks in claiming compensation in tort, covered
by the insurer of offending vehicle. Relevant paragraph of the decision of
Supreme Court in Meena Variyal ( supra ) is extracted as under:
“10. Before we proceed to consider the main aspect
arising for decision in this Appeal, we would like to
make certain general observations. It may be true that
the Motor Vehicles Act, insofar as it relates to claims
for compensation arising out of accidents, is a
beneficent piece of legislation. It may also be true that
subject to the rules made in that behalf, the Tribunal
may follow a summary procedure in dealing with a
claim. That does not mean that a Tribunal approached
with a claim for compensation under the Act should
ignore all basic principles of law in determining the
claim for compensation. Ordinarily, a contract of
insurance is a contract of indemnity. When a car
belonging to an owner is insured with the insurance
company and it is being driven by a driver employed by
the insured, when it meets with an accident, the
primary liability under law for payment of
compensation is that of the driver. Once the driver is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 27 of 51

liable, the owner of the vehicle becomes vicariously
liable for payment of compensation. It is this vicarious
liability of the owner that is indemnified by the
insurance company. A third party for whose benefit the
insurance is taken, is therefore entitled to show, when
he moves under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle
resulting in the accident; that the owner was
vicariously liable and that the insurance company was
bound to indemnify the owner and consequently, satisfy
the award made. Therefore, under general principles,
one would expect the driver to be impleaded before an
adjudication is claimed under Section 166 of the Act as
to whether a claimant before the Tribunal is entitled to
compensation for an accident that has occurred due to
alleged negligence of the driver. Why should not a
Tribunal insist on the driver of the vehicle being
impleaded when a claim is being filed?”
(emphasis added)
58. Section 166 resides in Chapter XI of MV Act, which bears a
heading, “ Insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks ”.
Definition of third party as provided under Section 145 (g) of MV Act,
1988 and Section 145 (i) of MV Act, 2019 is inclusive in nature. The
sequence and logic that permeates Chapter XI, which relates to insurance
cover against third party risks is that it is based on a mandate that no one
must use a vehicle in a public place, unless they have an insurance policy
which complies with provisions of that chapter. A useful traversal of
these provisions has been provided by Amicus Curiae, which has been
narrated above in paragraph 23 and is therefore, not being repeated here
for the sake of brevity.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 28 of 51

59. An insurance cover would be triggered only if there is a liability to
pay by the insured to a third party. According to the Black’s Law
Dictionary (Second Edition), “ liability is responsibility; the state of one
who is bound in law and justice to do something which may be enforced
by action. This liability may arise from contracts either express or
implied, or in consequence of torts committed .” Liability is a legal
construct and is borne out of a fault, negligence or any act or omission
that has legal consequences. Insured has to be first held liable, which will
be then covered by the insurer. However, if the liability does not arise, in
the first place, insurer’s duty to cover would also not be triggered.
60. In the present case, respondent no.1/father of the deceased was the
insured and owner of the vehicle. There is no claim of negligence or
infraction against the insured i.e. father of deceased. Therefore, the
question of his liability does not enter into the foray. Claim has been
made on behalf of deceased, claiming that he was in the shoes of
owner/driver or otherwise a third party, with respect to the personal
accident cover, which the Insurance Company had provided due to the
payment of additional premium by the insured. However, this does not
come within the confines of liability emanating in a claim under Chapter
XI of MV Act.
61. In this context, the necessity of proof of negligence has further
been emphasized by the decision of Supreme Court in Minu B. Mehta v.
Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, (1977) 2 SCC 441. Some useful
extracts from the said decision are as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 29 of 51

“27. This plea ignores the basic requirements of the
owner's liability and the claimant's right to receive
compensation. The owner's liability arises out of his
failure to discharge a duty cast on him by law. The
right to receive compensation can only be against a
person who is bound to compensate due to the failure
to perform a legal obligation. If a person is not liable
legally he is under no duty to compensate anyone else.
The Claims Tribunal is a tribunal constituted by the
State Government for expeditious disposal of the motor
claims. The general law applicable is only common
law and the law of torts. If under the law a person
becomes legally liable then the person suffering the
injuries is entitled to be compensated and the Tribunal
is authorised to determine the amount of compensation
which appears to be just. The plea that the Claims
Tribunal is entitled to award compensation which
appears to be just when it is satisfied on proof of injury
to a third party arising out of the use of a vehicle on a
public place without proof of negligence if accepted
would lead to strange results.
28. Section 110(1) of the Act empowers the State
Government to constitute one or more Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified for
the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for
compensation in respect of accidents involving the
death or bodily injury to persons. The power is
optional and the State Government may not constitute
a Claims Tribunal for certain areas. When a claim
includes a claim for compensation the claimant has an
option to make his claim before the civil court.
Regarding claims for compensation therefore in
certain cases civil courts also have a jurisdiction. If the
contention put forward is accepted so far as the civil
court is concerned it would have to determine the
liability of the owner on the basis of common law or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 30 of 51

torts while the Claims Tribunal can award
compensation without reference to common law or
torts and without coming to the conclusion that the
owner is liable. The concept of owner's liability
without any negligence is opposed to the basic
principles of law. The mere fact that a party received
an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public
place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner. It
may be that a person bent upon committing suicide
may jump before a car in motion and thus get himself
killed. We cannot perceive by what reasoning the
owner of the car could be made liable. The proof of
negligence remains the linch pin to recover
compensation. The various enactments have attempted
to mitigate a possible injury to the claimant by
providing for payment of the claims by insurance.”
(emphasis added)

Decisions relied upon by counsel for appellant/claimant

62. Aside from this fundamental legal flaw in the argument having
been pressed by Mr. Sarin , counsel for appellant/claimant, the decisions
relied upon by him need to be examined for the sake of completeness.
63. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in
Balakrishnan ( supra ). Facts of this case have been synopsized in
paragraphs nos. 11.1 to 11.5 above and are not being repeated herein to
avoid repetition.
64. Evidently, the claim in Balakrishnan ( supra ) was filed by the
injured claimant against the owner of vehicle in which he was travelling
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 31 of 51

( the company in which he was a Managing Director ) and, therefore, the
Insurance Company, basis that the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of that vehicle. High Court treated the
claimant as a passenger and, accordingly, liability was fastened on the
driver and, therefore, the insurer.
65. The point of dispute was whether, he being the Managing Director
of the company which also owned the car and a signatory in the
Registration Certificate ( RC ) book could maintain a claim as a third
party . Supreme Court deliberated upon the difference between a
Comprehensive/Package Policy and an Act Only Policy and opined that,
since it was a Comprehensive/Package Policy , liability of occupants of a
car would be covered.
66. The attempt made by counsel for appellant/claimant to extend this
opinion to the facts of the case at hand is completely untenable. In
Balakrishnan ( supra ), liability of the company being the owner of
vehicle in which the claimant was travelling was established on the basis
of negligence of the driver of the vehicle, who was a different person
from the claimant. The fundamental basis of insurance cover being
triggered was the liability on driver of the insured vehicle and, therefore,
the company vicariously.
67. Claimant was claiming as a third party i.e. as an occupant of the
car. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court had set aside the finding of High
Court and Tribunal as regards the liability of insurer and remitted the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 32 of 51

matter back to the Tribunal to scrutinize the insurance policy in a proper
perspective.
68. Further reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court
in Shanti Bopanna ( supra ), which is also misconceived. In that case, the
deceased, on whose behalf the claim had been pressed, was travelling in
a car belonging to his employer and the car was being driven by another
person. It was in this context that the claimant was treated as an occupant
and was held to be a third party, since he was neither the insurer nor the
insured.
69. Supreme Court rejected the contentions raised by the Insurance
Company that the deceased was not a third party , on the basis of the
categorical term in the insurance policy which covered death or bodily
injury to any person, including occupants carried in the vehicle since he
was an employee, sitting in the car. Facts of the instant case are clearly
different, where the deceased himself was driving the vehicle, and there
cannot be any claim of negligence on the part of owner of the vehicle,
who was not involved in the accident.
70. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in
Manjusha ( supra ), where claimant was the driver and owner of the
vehicle and was travelling along with the family, who were the
occupants. Due to a tyre burst, the car resultantly went out of control and
no negligence of the driver was attributed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 33 of 51

71. Tribunal granted compensation, which was assailed by the insurer,
stating that the driver himself was the tortfeasor. The High Court found
that there was no case for imposing a statutory liability, but it would be
covered by the Comprehensive/Package Policy to a limited extent. In
appeal, Supreme Court noted that the cases cited before it, were with
respect to statutory liability, whereas, the issue was regarding liability
under the personal accident insurance cover.
72. In particular, it noted that, “ what assumes significance in the
present case is that it is not the statutory liability, but the contractual
liability of a personal accident cover which forms the basis of the claim
raised. ” The question before Court was only whether liability was
limited or not, and in that context, the decision of Tribunal was restored,
considering that the Insurance Company had not pleaded limited liability
either before the Tribunal nor in the appeal before High Court. The
decision of Supreme Court in no way opines or advocates that such
claims can be considered under the MV Act, even though the issue is one
of contractual liability.
73. Mr. Varun Sarin , counsel for appellant/claimant, has also relied
upon decisions from various High Courts, which can be clearly
distinguished either on facts or for not addressing the issue in question.
73.1. In Suraj Kala ( supra ), the High Court of Allahabad, was dealing
with a claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act made by the driver,
who was also an employee of the owner of the vehicle. The judgment
was passed in context of the liability arising under the Workmen's
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 34 of 51

Compensation Act, 1923 and the extent to which it could be awarded by
the MACT. Discussion in the judgment does not come to the benefit of
appellant/claimant, since there was no relationship of employer-
employee between the owner and driver.
73.2. In Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore ( supra ), the Full Bench of High
Court of Gujarat was answering a reference concerning a claim made
under Section 163-A of the MV Act, by an employee of the owner, who
was driving an ambulance and met with an accident during the course of
employment and succumbed to his injuries. The High Court arrived at
the conclusion that when additional premium to cover paid driver or
conductor has been paid by the owner, the Insurance Company shall be
liable to cover such risk. This discussion does not have any relevance to
the case at hand.
73.3. In Ravi Prakash Mishra ( supra ), a Coordinate Bench of this
Court, was adjudicating a claim where the vehicle being driven by an
employee of the owner had hit a divider due to heavy fog. The Court held
that since, the insurance policy was a Comprehensive/Package Policy,
the Insurance Company would be liable to pay up the amount limited as
per the policy to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Reliance on this case shall also not be
sustainable.
73.4. Mr. Varun Sarin , vehemently relied upon decision of a Single
Judge of the High Court of Bombay in Ramchand ( supra ). In this case,
claim was made by the driver who had borrowed the vehicle, from its
owner and claimed compensation under the Comprehensive/Package
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 35 of 51

Policy. Court considered the issue of maintainability, however, only to
the extent as to whether a driver would step into shoes of an owner in a
claim made under Section 166 of MV Act and held that it was applicable
only with respect to claims filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act by
relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Ningamma ( supra ). The
Court did not go into the issue of, whether such a claim can be pursued
as a contractual claim filed under Section 166 of MV Act. Mr. Varun
Sarin , relied upon paragraph 55 of the said decision, which reads as
under:
“ 55. If what is canvassed before me by the learned
counsel for the insurance company is taken to be true,
the same will lead to an absurd interpretation where a
large class of driver driving vehicle will be excluded
from the insurance coverage, which will not only be
against sprit of the provisions but also contrary to
benevolent Scheme of the Act .”
(emphasis added)
However, this Court is not agreement with the simpliciter view taken by
the High Court of Bombay, that a claim made under Section 166 of the
MV Act would be successful against the Comprehensive/Package Policy
taken by owner of the vehicle, even if the person on whose behalf the
claim has been made was driving the vehicle. Nature of these claims
would be covered under contractual liability and not a claim under
Section 166 of MV Act which presupposes a finding on proof of
negligence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 36 of 51

73.5. In Manju Singh ( supra ), the High Court of Allahabad was dealing
with a claim made on behalf of the deceased who was driving the
vehicle, under the Comprehensive/Package Policy. Court allowed the
claim, since it was made under the ‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy ’ and
not under the ‘ Act Only Policy ’, however, there was no discussion on the
issue of negligence or otherwise.
73.6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Durga Prasad Bhusahal
( supra ) had provided Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of personal accident
cover which covered the owner, as well as, the driver of offending
vehicle. However, no discussion has been made by the Court on the issue
canvased before us.
73.7. In Sudha Singh ( supra ), the High Court of Patna was dealing with
a claim filed on behalf of the deceased driver who was travelling in a
vehicle belonging to owner. Insurance Company had raised the issue of
maintainability in the appeal. The High Court however, took into account
that the insurance policy is a Private Car/Package Policy and due to the
payment of additional premium, the insurer had taken contractual
obligation to cover the risk of all persons boarded on the vehicle. Court
held that the claim for compensation would be successful and
maintainable under Section 165 (1) of the MV Act and that the claimant
will be a third party , as they are neither the insured nor the insurer of
vehicle.
73.8. In Suraj Subba ( supra ), the High Court of Sikkim held that the
driver of vehicle, which was owned by another person, would be a third
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 37 of 51

party since he is neither the insured nor the insurer. However, discussion
by the Court does not include the required precondition of finding of
negligence.

Decisions relied upon by Amicus Curiae
74. Continuing this discussion on statutory liability versus contractual
liability and the maintainability of a claim under Section 166 of MV Act,
decisions which have been relied upon by Amicus Curiae are instructive
and useful for our determination.
75. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in
Sadanand Mukhi ( supra ), where claim was filed by the owner of a
motorcycle insured with the Insurance Company. The motorcycle was
being driven by son of the owner, who met with an accident and died as a
result of it. The Insurance Company raised an issue on maintainability,
considering that it was a father-son relationship, claimants could not seek
compensation, since the deceased was not a third party . The Tribunal
held the Insurance Company liable and the High Court dismissed the
appeal.
76. A number of issues were framed by the Tribunal, inter alia,
whether the claim was maintainable and the deceased was a third party .
Since, the Tribunal and High Court did not express an opinion, the issue
was therefore, analyzed by the Supreme Court, where it was
categorically stated that the MV Act provides for two types of insurance:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 38 of 51

statutory and contractual. The former requires the Insurance Company to
compensate the owner or driver of motor vehicle, in case any other
person dies or suffers injury as a result of the accident. Whereas, in the
latter, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering the life
and property of the owner of vehicle.
77. Since the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of MV Act
and an Act Only Policy was taken, the Supreme Court held that the
victim of an accident arising out of use of the insured vehicle, could not
be covered with respect to a contract of insurance. Findings of the
Supreme Court are extracted as under:


“ 13. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is
governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The
terms of the policy as also the quantum of the premium
payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends
not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but
also on the purpose for which the same was being used
and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an
`act policy', the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory
obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The
liability of the insurer is either statutory or
contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to
the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If
additional risks are sought to be covered, additional
premium has to be paid. If the contention of the
learned counsel is to be accepted, then to a large
extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act become
otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer
would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party
but also others who would not otherwise come within
the purview thereof. It is one thing to say that the life is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 39 of 51

uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it
is another thing to say that we must read a statute so
as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the
Act. It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to
be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof.
Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the
provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly
rational .
14. Only because driving of a motor vehicle may cause
accident involving loss of life and property not only of
a third party but also the owner of the vehicle and the
insured vehicle itself, different provisions have been
made in the Insurance Act as also the Act laying down
different types of insurance policies. The amount of
premium required to be paid for each of the policy is
governed by the Insurance Act. A statutory regulatory
authority fixes the norms and the guidelines .”
(emphasis added)

78. The Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company was not
liable, since the deceased was not covered as a third party by the
statutory policy.

79. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in
Ningamma ( supra ). In this case, a claim under Section 163-A of MV Act
was made by legal heirs of deceased, who sustained fatal injuries in an
accident while travelling on a motorcycle borrowed from the owner.
Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation. Appeal
was preferred by the Insurance Company before the High Court, stating
that the accident occurred due to fault of deceased and the claim petition
was not maintainable under Section 163-A of MV Act, since no other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 40 of 51

vehicle was involved in the accident. High Court allowed the appeal
holding that the claim was not maintainable, since no tortfeasor was
involved.
80. A Review Petition was filed by the claimants which was dismissed
by the High Court, thereafter, which they appealed before the Supreme
Court. Insurance Company argued that in order to award compensation
under Section 163-A of MV Act, the person who suffered a loss must be
a third party and since the deceased was not the third party , the High
Court was therefore, correct in its view.
81. The provisions of 163-A of MV Act were examined by the
Supreme Court in fair detail. The provision stated that the owner of a
motor vehicle or authorized insurer would be liable to pay compensation
in case of death or permanent disablement arising out of the use of a
motor vehicle. Claimant would not be required to prove or establish that
death or permanent disablement had taken place due to any wrongful act
or neglect of owner of the vehicle.

82. Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that deceased was not the
owner of the motorcycle in question and he had borrowed the
motorcycle. He also cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of
the motorcycle, even though he had been authorised by the owner to
drive the motorcycle. He would, therefore, step into shoes of the owner
of the motorcycle, basis the explicit provision of Section 163-A of MV
Act. If it was proved that driver was owner of the motor vehicle, in that
case, the owner himself could not be a recipient of compensation, as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 41 of 51

liability to pay is on the owner. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that
legal representatives of the deceased have stepped into shoes of the
owner of the motorcycle.
83. Supreme Court additionally examined whether a claim for
compensation could have been made by the legal representatives under
Section 166 of MV Act. A critical observation was made by the Supreme
Court which is emphasized as under:
“ 25. When an application of the aforesaid nature
claiming compensation under the provisions of Section
166 is received, the Tribunal is required to hold an
enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an
award which, however, would be subject to the
provisions of Section 162, by determining the amount
of compensation, which is found to be just. Person or
persons who made claim for compensation would
thereafter be paid such amount. When such a claim is
made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it
has to be proved that the deceased was not himself
responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent
driving. It would also be necessary to prove that the
deceased would be covered under the policy so as to
make the insurance company liable to make the
payment to the heirs .”
(emphasis added)
84. Supreme Court, therefore, clearly states that a claim under Section
166 of MV Act cannot subsist if the deceased was himself responsible
for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. The Supreme Court
also notes Sadanand Mukhi ( supra ), in the following terms:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 42 of 51

“ 33. There are indeed cases like New India Assurance
Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others,
(2009) 2 SCC 417, wherein, the son of the owner was
driving the vehicle, who died in the accident, was not
regarded as third party. In the said case the court held
that neither Section 163-A nor Section 166 would be
applicable. The matter was reminded back to the High
Court for dealing with open issues of fact as to whether
that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of
the deceased and whether the claimants would be
governed by the terms and conditions of insurance
policy .”
(emphasis added)
85. No doubt, Ningamma ( supra ) did not rule out the possibility of
seeking compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. However, the claim
petition was filed under Section 163-A of MV Act, where the
consideration was materially different. Amicus Curiae has pressed the
position of law as laid down in Sadanand Mukhi ( supra ), which drew
out a distinction between contractual policy and statutory policy and
ultimately held that driver of the motor vehicle was not a third party
under the MV Act.
86. Reliance may also be placed upon the decision of Madras High
Court in Ramesh Babu ( supra ), where a preliminary issue regarding
maintainability of the claim petition was framed. A claim was filed under
Section 163-A of MV Act by the owner who was driving a taxi and had
suffered injuries after dashing against a palm tree. The claim petition was
resisted by the Insurance Company, stating that the claimant was not a
third party .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 43 of 51

87. The High Court noted that the claim petition was actually filed
under Section 166 of MV Act, but had been incorrectly noted as one
under Section 163-A of the MV Act by the Tribunal. The Court held that
in a Package Policy , if a policyholder specifically seeks a claim against
the personal accident cover, then nature of the insurance policy, as well
as terms and conditions have to be taken into account and, such claims
cannot be adjudicated by a Tribunal. If there was no statutory liability on
the part of insurance company, provisions of the MV Act could not be
invoked, nor could an adjudication be done before the Tribunal.
88. The High Court stated that, “ mere contractual liability are not
enforceable before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The very
purpose and object of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are to
adjudicate the claim petitions and grant ‘ just compensation ’ with
reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Relevant findings
of the Court are extracted as under:
“ 33. Reading of the conditions stipulated in the said
Package Policy with reference to the Personal
Accident Cover for owner-cum-driver, it is contractual
in nature. The contract is between the owner of the
vehicle as well as the Insurance company concerned.
There is no third party involvement with reference to
the Personal Accident Cover. The conditions / claim of
Personal Accident Cover is also well enumerated in the
policy because Clause IV deals with the coverage.
Once, the terms and conditions stipulated in the
Personal Accident Cover is satisfied, then alone, the
owner-cum-driver is entitled to get the compensation
as fixed in the Personal Accident Cover.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 44 of 51

…
35. It is important to note that the terms and conditions
stipulated in the Insurance policy are of paramount
importance for the purpose of deciding the liability as
well as to fix the quantum of compensation to be paid.
In the event of no coverage under the policy, then the
Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay
compensation. The policy being contractual in nature,
the person claiming benefit under the policy must
establish that he is entitled for compensation with
reference to the terms and conditions agreed between
the parties in the signed contract. Undoubtedly, no
person is entitled to claim any benefit beyond the scope
of the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.
Thus, nature of policy, terms and conditions stipulated,
which all are agreed upon are the factors to be
ascertained preliminarily by the Courts for the purpose
of entertaining the Claim Petitions as well as to fix the
liability to pay compensation.
36. The Motor Vehicles Act being a Special legislation
and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is constituted
to deal with the Accident Claims specifically and under
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal
have no jurisdiction to deal with all other policies
issued by the Insurance company, which all are
contractual in nature and the terms and conditions
agreed between the parties specifically. Such
contracted policy cannot raise any right to the parties
to file Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act and
such claims are to be made before the competent
Forum namely before Consumer Forum or before the
competent Civil Court of Law. The enforceability of the
terms and conditions cannot be adjudicated as such
contractual policies are unconnected with the scope of
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, more
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 45 of 51

specifically, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
37. It is relevant to consider that the Motor Vehicle
policies are issued by the Insurance company for the
purpose of grant of compensation and the language
employed is “Compensation”. However, the Personal
Accident Coverage Policy reveals that it is “benefit” is
to be granted. Thus, the word “Compensation”
adopted under the Motor Vehicle Policy cannot be
equated with the “benefit” to be granted under the
Personal Accident Policy, which is independent and
unconnected with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act as well as the compensation to be assessed and
granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is a
difference between the Motor Vehicle Policy and
Personal Accident Coverage Policy. Motor Accident
Policies are strictly within the ambit of the provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Personal Accident
Coverage Policy is strictly in accordance with the
terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The
contractual liability or obligations cannot be
adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in
such an event, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are
usurping the powers of the competent Civil Court,
which is impermissible. If such contractual liabilities
are adjudicated before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, then the Tribunal are exercising excess
jurisdiction, which is not contemplated nor conferred
under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. ”
(emphasis added)

89. The observation made by the Madras High Court in that, if
contractual liability is adjudicated before the MACT, then this would
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 46 of 51

result in Tribunals exercising excess jurisdiction not confirmed by the
MV Act, is an aspect which was covered by the Amicus Curiae under the
epithet of fetishizing specialised jurisdictions of Tribunals which has
been referred to above in paragraphs 26 to 28 .
90. This aspect does appeal to the Court, considering that the
jurisdiction of a specialised Tribunal constituted under a particular Act
with a specific remit cannot be expanded beyond the confines of the Act,
nor can they be twisted and contorted in order to accommodate all kinds
of claims.
91. A resonant view has been taken by the Single Judge of the Madras
High Court in a recent decision in Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Karthika and Ors . 2026 SCC OnLine Madras 3108. A
claim was made on behalf of the deceased, who was travelling on his
own bike who met with an accident and died as a result of it. His legal
representatives filed a claim under Section 166 of MV Act, which was
resisted by the insurance company, stating that deceased himself was the
cause of accident and also, the owner of the vehicle.
92. Claimants relied inter alia on the decision in Manjusha ( supra )
and deliberated in detail regarding the difference between a personal
accident cover and statutory coverage. Relevant discussion made by the
Court is extracted hereunder:
“ 10. Admittedly, the deceased is the owner of the two
wheeler, which met with an accident and that he is
responsible for the cause of the accident as per the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 47 of 51

FIR. The Tribunal also arrived at a conclusion that the
deceased is responsible for the accident. Undoubtedly,
Personal Accident cover is available. However, the
personal accident cover is not a statutory coverage and
therefore, separate claim is to be made strictly in
accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in
the policy, which are all agreed between the parties.
The Personal Accident coverage policy is a contractual
policy and there is no statutory coverage. Thus, the
claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is
not maintainable. If there is statutory coverage under
Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
claim petition can be maintainable before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. In respect of all other
contractual policies, the aggrieved person has to
approach the competent forum and not the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. The benefits to be granted
under the contractual obligations cannot be equated
with the compensation to be granted under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is of
statutory character. The benefits agreed between the
parties under a contract is not akin to that of the
statutory liability and payments of compensation
contemplated under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the Tribunal had committed
an error in not adjudicating the preliminary issue of
maintainability and proceeded on the basis that there
is a policy coverage and accordingly granted a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- under the Personal Accident cover .
11. Even for grant of Personal Accident cover, the
terms and conditions stipulated in the policy is to be
verified. However, the Tribunal has proceeded and
fixed the liability based on the statutory provisions and
granted compensation. The personal accident cover is
a separate policy and the terms and conditions for the
same are provided separately, which were agreed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 48 of 51

between the parties. Therefore, in the absence of any
statutory liability under the policy, the Tribunal ought
not to have entertained the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .”
(emphasis added)

93. Reliance was also placed upon Ramesh Babu ( supra ) and the
Court held as under:
“ 13. In view of the legal principles settled by this
Court, in the judgment cited supra, and the said legal
principles squarely applies to the facts and
circumstances of the present case on hand, this Court
has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the
award of the Tribunal is perverse. However, it is open
to the claimants to directly approach the insurer on the
basis of the Personal Accident cover. In case, the
Insurance Company fails to compensate him, it is well
open to him to approach the Consumer Forum or any
other appropriate Forum.”
(emphasis added)
The Present Case
94. No doubt, courts have entertained claims under Section 166 of MV
Act in view of awarding just and reasonable compensation, where
additional premium has been paid by the owner. However, in the opinion
of this Court, a claim which is covered by payment of additional
premium is not made on the basis of statutory mandate. Therefore, it
would not be a claim made under Chapter XI of MV Act, i.e. within the
remit of MACT.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 49 of 51

95. No doubt, there are differing views of various Benches of other
Courts on this issue, however the decisions vary since there are various
permutations and combinations of facts involved in each of the matters.
In some cases, the issue concerns an ‘ Act Only Policy’ versus
‘ Comprehensive/Package Policy ’ and a claim is made under Section 163-
A and not under Section 166 of MV Act. In some cases, the claim is
made by owners, if they suffered injuries or through their legal
representatives if they died due to the accident and a claim is made with
respect to their own insurance policy whereas, in others, the vehicle was
either driven by family of the owner or by a gratuitous driver claiming
against the insurance policy taken by the owner.
96. What is quite clear to this Court is that in the facts of this case,
deceased-son had taken the car from his father (respondent no.1) and was
driving the vehicle which was involved in the accident. A claim made
under Section 166 of the MV Act involves proof of negligence against
driver of the vehicle, which, in this case, was the deceased himself and,
therefore, liability could not have been placed on respondent no.1/owner,
which would be then covered by respondent no.2/insurer.
97. It is necessary for a claim made under Section 166 of MV Act to
establish a tortfeasor in order to place liability. The tortfeasor, in this
case, cannot claim claim liability as a ‘ third party .’
98. On the other hand, the claim, if made under the personal accident
cover of the insurance policy, would be tested on the terms and
conditions of the insurance contract and, therefore, would not be within
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 50 of 51

the remit of MACT. Whether the benefit of insurance could extend to the
death of a driver of the car, who was not the owner, but had borrowed the
vehicle from the owner, would be an issue, which would then have to be
addressed under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and,
therefore, it would be up to the claimants to approach the insurer and in
case the claim is defeated, their remedies would be open before the
consumer forum or any other competent forum. Expanding the
jurisdiction of MACT to cover claims of this nature would be extending
the motor accidents jurisprudence to an illogical extremity.
99. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
100. Pending applications (if any) are rendered infructuous.
101. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)

JULY 1, 2026 / ak/rk/ sp

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:26:21
MAC.APP. 532/2025 Page 51 of 51