A borrower driving an insured vehicle steps into the owner’s shoes and cannot claim Section 164 compensation.

On 18 February 2020, the deceased was driving a motorcycle owned by his brother when it met with an accident near Loh Pulia, Ghorghalab. The deceased died from his injuries; no other vehicle was involved. His mother filed a claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her ₹5,75,000 with 9% annual interest against National Insurance Company.

The insurer appealed, contending that the deceased, as the motorcycle’s driver, could not claim against the insurer of that same vehicle as a third party. The claimant sought enhancement by cross-objection.

Whether the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle involved in the accident and owned by his brother, could claim compensation under Section 164 against the insurer of that motorcycle.

Whether the claimant’s cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation could be allowed.

The Court considered Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court relied on Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 550, which applied the principle in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710: where the deceased was driving the vehicle involved in the accident, the deceased steps into the owner’s shoes and cannot claim under the no-fault provision against the owner and insurer of that same vehicle as a third party.

The Court also stated that, under the applicable Schedule II provision, compensation could not exceed ₹5 lakh, and on that basis rejected the claimant’s request for enhancement.

The deceased was admittedly driving the insured motorcycle when the accident occurred, and no other vehicle was involved. The Court held that his alleged employment by the motorcycle’s owner did not give him third-party status in relation to that vehicle.

It also noted that no separate premium had been paid to insure the deceased’s risk. Applying Ramkhiladi and Ningamma, the Court concluded that the insurer could not be held liable under Section 164 on these facts.

The claimant’s cross-objection for enhancement was rejected by reference to the stated statutory ceiling.

The claimant’s cross-objection seeking enhancement was dismissed.