Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 896
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……………. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.5885 of 2019)
MANJUSHA & ORS.
...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
…RESPONDENTS
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question arising in this appeal is as to
whether the family of the brother of the owner of the
vehicle, who died in the accident when the tyre of the
car he was driving burst, is entitled to claim
1
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . It
is trite that the insurer has no statutory liability to
cover the risk of the owner, or as in this case the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.07.25
17:02:18 IST
Reason:
1
For brevity ‘the MV Act’
Page 1 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
driver of the vehicle, who steps into the shoes of the
owner, when the statutory liability is restricted to
third party liabilities.
3. In the present case the claimants, who are the
widow, minor children and the parents of the
deceased, approached the Tribunal, which granted
an amount of Rs.25,82,000/- based on the income of
the deceased and the amounts, incurred for
transportation, loss of consortium as also travelling
and funeral expenses. The insurance company filed
an appeal essentially on the ground that there was
negligence on the part of the driver, thus absolving
the insurer from the liability to indemnify, since the
driver, who steps into the shoes of the owner, is the
tortfeasor. The High Court looked into the policy and
found no case for imposing a statutory liability but
found the comprehensive policy with additional
premium, to cover only a liability to the extent of
Rs.2,00,000/- as against any injury/death caused to
the owner/driver. The High Court reduced the
liability to Rs.2,00,000/-.
4. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
respondent-insurance company relied on a number
of decisions to substantiate the claim of the insurance
Page 2 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
company before the Tribunal. It was also argued that
the guidelines of the insurance company clearly
indicates the limited liability insofar as the policy
taken by the insurer, the owner of the vehicle.
Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondent,
however, contended that such a ground was never
taken before the Tribunal or before the High Court. It
was also contended that the guidelines were never
produced in evidence nor was any witness examined
on the part of the insurance company. The claimant
had mounted the box, but no cross-examination was
addressed upon the contentions now raised.
5. On facts, suffice it to notice that the deceased
and the owner along with their families were
travelling in the car when the right rear tyre burst,
resulting in the car going out of control. The vehicle
toppled and the driver of the vehicle suffered head
injury, to which he succumbed. There is hence no
negligence of the driver nor can any fault be
attributed to him. The owner of the vehicle, the
brother of the deceased, his wife and the wife of the
deceased who were travelling in the car sustained
injuries. It was categorically stated before the
Tribunal that the car was driven safely, in moderate
Page 3 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
speed with due diligence and caution and the
accident occurred only on account of the tyre
bursting. On the claim being raised, the owner of the
vehicle admitted the accident and asserted that the
driver had a valid driving licence to claim coverage
under the comprehensive insurance policy.
6. The insurance company filed a written
statement alleging no valid licence for the driver,
resulting in breach of the conditions of policy by the
owner and the negligence of the driver. The Tribunal
framed five issues, the first of which was regarding
the accident which was admitted to have taken place,
in which the driver met his end, which was the second
issue; not in dispute. The insurance cover, the third
issue was also proved and so was the fourth issue
regarding the age of the deceased and his income.
The claimant's right to entitlement for compensation
and interest was also found in favour. Insofar as the
third issue regarding the insurance of the vehicle, the
Tribunal found that the vehicle was covered by a
comprehensive policy wherein premium of personal
accident to owner-cum-driver was paid. The High
Court on the other hand, found on a reading of the
policy that the additional premium remitted, only
Page 4 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
covered the liability to the owner-cum-driver to the
extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.
7. Immediately we have to notice that the
insurance policy is not produced in the records of the
S.L.P, though, it is said to have been marked before
the Tribunal as Ex. P56. Nor is the written statement
of the insurance company produced in the records of
the S.L.P. to establish that such a contention
regarding limited liability was taken before the
Tribunal; which from the reading of the award of the
Tribunal does not seem to have been taken.
8. We will first look at the decisions placed on
record by the learned Counsel appearing for the
insurance company. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
2
Rajni Devi arose from a claim on the death of a
person riding a motorcycle, along with another. The
insurance company resisted the claim contending
that although the owner of the vehicle deposited an
extra amount of Rs.50 covering his personal
insurance, the same would not cover the case of the
pillion rider and in any event, the owner of the
vehicle is not a third party within the meaning of
2
(2008) 5 SCC 736
Page 5 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
Section 147 of the Act. The claim was under Section
163A of the MV Act wherein was discussed a number
of cases regarding the precise liability arising under
a no fault liability claim filed under the said provision.
3
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha , the
owner of the vehicle himself was to be blamed for the
accident, in which event it was held; under Section
166 of the MV Act, the insured itself cannot be
fastened with any liability giving rise to no question
of the insurer indemnifying the insured. Dhanraj v.
4
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. found that
Section 147 of the MV Act does not require an
insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily
injury to the owner of the vehicle. The comprehensive
policy taken therein assured a premium of Rs.4,989/-
having been paid under own damage; which was
found to cover only the liability arising from damage
caused to the vehicle and non-electrical accessories
and not the injury caused to the owner itself. It was
observed that an owner of the vehicle can raise a
claim validly, if there is a personal accident insurance
taken out; which was not available in the said case. In
3
(2007) 9 SCC 263
4
(2004) 8 SCC 553
Page 6 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
5
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut ,
the own damage claim was held to be possible of
adjudication only by a forum under the Consumer
Protection Act, wherein the cause could be
adjudicated by the insured, the owner of the vehicle,
against the insurer, without the junction of the
claimants.
6
9. Ramkhiladi v United India Insurance Co. ,
7
Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
8
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi
were all cases under Section 163A of the MV Act, in
which it was held that a borrower of a vehicle, who
was driving, cannot raise a claim under no fault
liability, since the driver of the vehicle steps into the
6
shoes of the owner. In Ramkhiladi , the accident was
caused by the collision of two motor bikes, and the
claim was raised by the family of the deceased
against the owner and insurance company of the bike
which was driven by the deceased.
10. These are all cases with respect to the statutory
liability, and we have to emphasise the personal
5
(2007) 3 SCC 700
6
(2020) 2 SCC 550
7
(2009) 13 SCC 710
8
(2009) 2 SCC 417
Page 7 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
accident insurance cover, highlighted in one of the
above cited decisions, which is relevant here. 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. Admittedly, there was a personal
accident cover taken. The question is only as to
whether the liability was limited or not. As we
noticed, neither the insurance policy is before us nor
do we see a contention of limited liability having
been taken, from the order of the Tribunal which
notices the contentions taken in the written statement.
The written statement as we observed has not been
produced in the records of the case. However, we
have the benefit of the memorandum of appeal filed
before the High Court by the insurance company
which is produced as Annexure P2. We do not see any
such ground of a limited liability having been taken.
The grounds taken from 1-8 are all with respect to the
negligence of the driver and absence of a valid and
effective driving licence. There is also a ground taken
regarding the monthly income determination which
obviously was not pressed before the High Court. The
ground regarding absence of a valid licence was also
not pressed.
Page 8 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
11. When the contention of limited liability was
neither taken before the Tribunal nor even in the
memorandum of appeal filed, there was no reason for
the High Court to look into the policy document to
find limited liability; which again is urged before us
on the basis of an extract of the Indian Motor Tariffs,
termed to be a guideline issued, with respect to
insurance policies, by the Tariff Advisory Committee.
By the guidelines it is intended that a comprehensive
regulatory framework governing the structure,
terms, conditions and premium rates applicable to
Motor Vehicle policies in India is created. It is stated
that the IMT is binding on all general insurance
companies, operating in the Country and ensures
uniformity and fairness in underwriting motor
insurance risk. No doubt, the guidelines issued by the
Tariff Advisory Committee regulates the issuance of
the policies by the insurers but unless it is specified
in the insurance policy, it cannot bind the insured.
12. Specific reference was also made to IMT 16
which has the nominal heading ‘personal accident to
unnamed passengers other than insured and paid
driver and the cleaner’, which is stated to be limited
to the amounts specified therein. Under IMT 16, there
Page 9 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
is a tabular form which enables 100% compensation
with respect to various injuries inter alia of death. It is
in the proviso that there is a limit provided with
specification that the Capital Sum Insured (CSI) per
person is to be inserted. Whether such sum was
inserted in the policy and whether such a contention
was taken before the Tribunal is most relevant in the
adjudication of the instant case.
13. In this context, we cannot but notice
6
Ramkhiladi , in which there was a contention taken
by the claimant that the deceased was employed by
the owner of the vehicle, the motor bike. It was held
in paragraph 9.3 that no evidence was led by the
claimants to prove that the deceased driver was an
employee of the owner. Pleadings and proof of such
pleadings; by valid evidence led, is the crux and core
of any adjudicatory process. Trite is the principle that
there can be no proof offered without specific
pleadings. The limited liability was not pleaded, by
the insurance company, either before the Tribunal, as
we see from the award made, nor in the appeal filed
before the High Court as we see from the
memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court.
Page 10 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
14. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the
High Court order, which we set aside. We restore the
order of the Tribunal and direct the amounts awarded
to be paid within a period of two months from today
with interest @ 8% per annum as ordered by the
Tribunal and whatever amounts have already been
paid shall be deducted. The appellant shall provide
the bank account details to the Insurance Company
who shall transfer the amount online within the period
specified hereinabove.
15. The appeal stands allowed as above.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 25, 2025
Page 11 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……………. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.5885 of 2019)
MANJUSHA & ORS.
...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
…RESPONDENTS
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question arising in this appeal is as to
whether the family of the brother of the owner of the
vehicle, who died in the accident when the tyre of the
car he was driving burst, is entitled to claim
1
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . It
is trite that the insurer has no statutory liability to
cover the risk of the owner, or as in this case the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.07.25
17:02:18 IST
Reason:
1
For brevity ‘the MV Act’
Page 1 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
driver of the vehicle, who steps into the shoes of the
owner, when the statutory liability is restricted to
third party liabilities.
3. In the present case the claimants, who are the
widow, minor children and the parents of the
deceased, approached the Tribunal, which granted
an amount of Rs.25,82,000/- based on the income of
the deceased and the amounts, incurred for
transportation, loss of consortium as also travelling
and funeral expenses. The insurance company filed
an appeal essentially on the ground that there was
negligence on the part of the driver, thus absolving
the insurer from the liability to indemnify, since the
driver, who steps into the shoes of the owner, is the
tortfeasor. The High Court looked into the policy and
found no case for imposing a statutory liability but
found the comprehensive policy with additional
premium, to cover only a liability to the extent of
Rs.2,00,000/- as against any injury/death caused to
the owner/driver. The High Court reduced the
liability to Rs.2,00,000/-.
4. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
respondent-insurance company relied on a number
of decisions to substantiate the claim of the insurance
Page 2 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
company before the Tribunal. It was also argued that
the guidelines of the insurance company clearly
indicates the limited liability insofar as the policy
taken by the insurer, the owner of the vehicle.
Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondent,
however, contended that such a ground was never
taken before the Tribunal or before the High Court. It
was also contended that the guidelines were never
produced in evidence nor was any witness examined
on the part of the insurance company. The claimant
had mounted the box, but no cross-examination was
addressed upon the contentions now raised.
5. On facts, suffice it to notice that the deceased
and the owner along with their families were
travelling in the car when the right rear tyre burst,
resulting in the car going out of control. The vehicle
toppled and the driver of the vehicle suffered head
injury, to which he succumbed. There is hence no
negligence of the driver nor can any fault be
attributed to him. The owner of the vehicle, the
brother of the deceased, his wife and the wife of the
deceased who were travelling in the car sustained
injuries. It was categorically stated before the
Tribunal that the car was driven safely, in moderate
Page 3 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
speed with due diligence and caution and the
accident occurred only on account of the tyre
bursting. On the claim being raised, the owner of the
vehicle admitted the accident and asserted that the
driver had a valid driving licence to claim coverage
under the comprehensive insurance policy.
6. The insurance company filed a written
statement alleging no valid licence for the driver,
resulting in breach of the conditions of policy by the
owner and the negligence of the driver. The Tribunal
framed five issues, the first of which was regarding
the accident which was admitted to have taken place,
in which the driver met his end, which was the second
issue; not in dispute. The insurance cover, the third
issue was also proved and so was the fourth issue
regarding the age of the deceased and his income.
The claimant's right to entitlement for compensation
and interest was also found in favour. Insofar as the
third issue regarding the insurance of the vehicle, the
Tribunal found that the vehicle was covered by a
comprehensive policy wherein premium of personal
accident to owner-cum-driver was paid. The High
Court on the other hand, found on a reading of the
policy that the additional premium remitted, only
Page 4 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
covered the liability to the owner-cum-driver to the
extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.
7. Immediately we have to notice that the
insurance policy is not produced in the records of the
S.L.P, though, it is said to have been marked before
the Tribunal as Ex. P56. Nor is the written statement
of the insurance company produced in the records of
the S.L.P. to establish that such a contention
regarding limited liability was taken before the
Tribunal; which from the reading of the award of the
Tribunal does not seem to have been taken.
8. We will first look at the decisions placed on
record by the learned Counsel appearing for the
insurance company. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
2
Rajni Devi arose from a claim on the death of a
person riding a motorcycle, along with another. The
insurance company resisted the claim contending
that although the owner of the vehicle deposited an
extra amount of Rs.50 covering his personal
insurance, the same would not cover the case of the
pillion rider and in any event, the owner of the
vehicle is not a third party within the meaning of
2
(2008) 5 SCC 736
Page 5 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
Section 147 of the Act. The claim was under Section
163A of the MV Act wherein was discussed a number
of cases regarding the precise liability arising under
a no fault liability claim filed under the said provision.
3
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha , the
owner of the vehicle himself was to be blamed for the
accident, in which event it was held; under Section
166 of the MV Act, the insured itself cannot be
fastened with any liability giving rise to no question
of the insurer indemnifying the insured. Dhanraj v.
4
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. found that
Section 147 of the MV Act does not require an
insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily
injury to the owner of the vehicle. The comprehensive
policy taken therein assured a premium of Rs.4,989/-
having been paid under own damage; which was
found to cover only the liability arising from damage
caused to the vehicle and non-electrical accessories
and not the injury caused to the owner itself. It was
observed that an owner of the vehicle can raise a
claim validly, if there is a personal accident insurance
taken out; which was not available in the said case. In
3
(2007) 9 SCC 263
4
(2004) 8 SCC 553
Page 6 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
5
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut ,
the own damage claim was held to be possible of
adjudication only by a forum under the Consumer
Protection Act, wherein the cause could be
adjudicated by the insured, the owner of the vehicle,
against the insurer, without the junction of the
claimants.
6
9. Ramkhiladi v United India Insurance Co. ,
7
Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
8
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi
were all cases under Section 163A of the MV Act, in
which it was held that a borrower of a vehicle, who
was driving, cannot raise a claim under no fault
liability, since the driver of the vehicle steps into the
6
shoes of the owner. In Ramkhiladi , the accident was
caused by the collision of two motor bikes, and the
claim was raised by the family of the deceased
against the owner and insurance company of the bike
which was driven by the deceased.
10. These are all cases with respect to the statutory
liability, and we have to emphasise the personal
5
(2007) 3 SCC 700
6
(2020) 2 SCC 550
7
(2009) 13 SCC 710
8
(2009) 2 SCC 417
Page 7 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
accident insurance cover, highlighted in one of the
above cited decisions, which is relevant here. 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. Admittedly, there was a personal
accident cover taken. The question is only as to
whether the liability was limited or not. As we
noticed, neither the insurance policy is before us nor
do we see a contention of limited liability having
been taken, from the order of the Tribunal which
notices the contentions taken in the written statement.
The written statement as we observed has not been
produced in the records of the case. However, we
have the benefit of the memorandum of appeal filed
before the High Court by the insurance company
which is produced as Annexure P2. We do not see any
such ground of a limited liability having been taken.
The grounds taken from 1-8 are all with respect to the
negligence of the driver and absence of a valid and
effective driving licence. There is also a ground taken
regarding the monthly income determination which
obviously was not pressed before the High Court. The
ground regarding absence of a valid licence was also
not pressed.
Page 8 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
11. When the contention of limited liability was
neither taken before the Tribunal nor even in the
memorandum of appeal filed, there was no reason for
the High Court to look into the policy document to
find limited liability; which again is urged before us
on the basis of an extract of the Indian Motor Tariffs,
termed to be a guideline issued, with respect to
insurance policies, by the Tariff Advisory Committee.
By the guidelines it is intended that a comprehensive
regulatory framework governing the structure,
terms, conditions and premium rates applicable to
Motor Vehicle policies in India is created. It is stated
that the IMT is binding on all general insurance
companies, operating in the Country and ensures
uniformity and fairness in underwriting motor
insurance risk. No doubt, the guidelines issued by the
Tariff Advisory Committee regulates the issuance of
the policies by the insurers but unless it is specified
in the insurance policy, it cannot bind the insured.
12. Specific reference was also made to IMT 16
which has the nominal heading ‘personal accident to
unnamed passengers other than insured and paid
driver and the cleaner’, which is stated to be limited
to the amounts specified therein. Under IMT 16, there
Page 9 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
is a tabular form which enables 100% compensation
with respect to various injuries inter alia of death. It is
in the proviso that there is a limit provided with
specification that the Capital Sum Insured (CSI) per
person is to be inserted. Whether such sum was
inserted in the policy and whether such a contention
was taken before the Tribunal is most relevant in the
adjudication of the instant case.
13. In this context, we cannot but notice
6
Ramkhiladi , in which there was a contention taken
by the claimant that the deceased was employed by
the owner of the vehicle, the motor bike. It was held
in paragraph 9.3 that no evidence was led by the
claimants to prove that the deceased driver was an
employee of the owner. Pleadings and proof of such
pleadings; by valid evidence led, is the crux and core
of any adjudicatory process. Trite is the principle that
there can be no proof offered without specific
pleadings. The limited liability was not pleaded, by
the insurance company, either before the Tribunal, as
we see from the award made, nor in the appeal filed
before the High Court as we see from the
memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court.
Page 10 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019
14. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the
High Court order, which we set aside. We restore the
order of the Tribunal and direct the amounts awarded
to be paid within a period of two months from today
with interest @ 8% per annum as ordered by the
Tribunal and whatever amounts have already been
paid shall be deducted. The appellant shall provide
the bank account details to the Insurance Company
who shall transfer the amount online within the period
specified hereinabove.
15. The appeal stands allowed as above.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 25, 2025
Page 11 of 11
CA @SLP (C) No.5885 of 2019