A permissive rider is not a third party and cannot claim under owner-driver personal accident coverage.

The appellants, parents of the deceased Amarnath, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on 5 November 2021 the deceased was riding the first respondent’s motorcycle, insured with the second respondent, when he lost control after a dog crossed the road and collided with a cyclist.

He sustained fatal head injuries and died before reaching the hospital.

The claimants asserted that the deceased was aged about 28 years and employed with Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, earning wages and additional allowances.

The first respondent, the vehicle owner, remained ex parte.

The insurer denied liability, contending that the deceased was the rider, had stepped into the shoes of the owner, and was not a third party covered by the statutory policy.

The claimants examined the first appellant and the deceased’s bank manager; the insurer examined its legal manager and produced the insurance policy and related documents.

The Tribunal relied on the FIR and final report, which attributed the accident to the deceased’s rash and negligent riding, and held that the deceased was not covered as a third party.

Although the policy contained personal accident coverage for the owner/driver, the Tribunal held that such coverage applied to the registered owner and not to the deceased, who had borrowed the vehicle.

The claim petition was accordingly dismissed.

The claimants challenged that decision under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the motor insurance policy for the death of the deceased, who was riding the insured motorcycle but was not its registered owner?

Whether the personal accident coverage for the “owner/driver” under the policy extended to the deceased as a permissive borrower or rider of the motorcycle?

Whether the insurer could be fastened with liability when the accident was attributed to the deceased’s own rash and negligent riding and he was treated as having stepped into the shoes of the owner?

The Court applied Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that compulsory third-party insurance does not ordinarily cover the owner or a person who steps into the owner’s position while riding the insured vehicle.

A permissive borrower or rider of the owner’s motorcycle is not thereby treated as a third party vis-à-vis the vehicle owner or insurer; rather, the rider may be regarded as stepping into the shoes of the owner for purposes of determining statutory insurance liability.

The Court also applied the terms of the specific policy, under which personal accident coverage for the “owner/driver” was treated as covering the registered owner and not every person permitted to drive the vehicle.

The appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Tribunal’s award.

The appellants relied on Ramhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, and Vasantha v. Venkatachalam, but the Court did not find those submissions sufficient to establish coverage under the policy.

The Court found that the FIR, lodged on the complaint of the cyclist involved in the accident, and the final report attributed the accident to the deceased’s rash and negligent riding; the criminal case had abated due to his death.

The first claimant was not an eyewitness, and the owner was not examined to prove the alleged permission or to establish that the deceased was covered by any contractual extension of the policy.

Although the policy included personal accident coverage for the owner/driver and a corresponding premium had been paid, the Court construed that clause as referring to the registered owner, not to a borrower or permissive rider.

Since the deceased was riding the motorcycle, was responsible for the accident, and was not the registered owner or a third party covered by the policy, the insurer could not be made liable.

The Tribunal’s conclusion that the deceased was the author of his own cause and that no valid policy coverage existed was therefore upheld.

It held that the deceased, being the rider and permissive user of the owner’s motorcycle, was not a third party under the policy and was not entitled to invoke the personal accident coverage available to the registered owner/driver.

The Tribunal’s dismissal of M.C.O.P. No.1335 of 2021 was affirmed, and C.M.A. No.3133 of 2026 was dismissed.

There was no order as to costs.