Heirs of a negligent driver stepping into the owner's shoes are limited to contractual personal accident cover.

The deceased, Yogeshbhai Mansingbhai, was driving a tractor owned by Defendant No. 2 (Respondent), which had been borrowed by a friend for agricultural purposes

The deceased lost control of the vehicle, causing it to turn turtle, resulting in his death

The heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), 1988, alleging negligence. The Tribunal awarded ₹9,45,000/- with 9% interest, holding the Insurance Company and owner jointly and severally liable

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the deceased was the tortfeasor and not a "third party," and that there was a breach of policy conditions regarding the driver's license

The court applied Section 166 of the MVA, 1988, which is based on the principle of "fault liability"

It relied on Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710], which establishes that a borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and cannot claim compensation for their own negligence under Section 166 or 163-A

Regarding the driver's license, the court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [(2004) 3 SCC 297], holding that the insurer bears the burden of proving a "breach" by the insured

the court noted the contractual liability for Personal Accident (PA) cover under the insurance policy

The Court reasoned that since Section 166 requires proof of negligence by another party, the heirs of the deceased—who was the sole tortfeasor—cannot maintain a claim against the insurer of the vehicle he was driving

Because the deceased was hired by a borrower and not the insured owner, he did not qualify as a "paid driver" under the policy's specific legal liability (IMT 28) but rather stepped into the owner's shoes

the court found that the policy (Exh. 40) included a premium for Personal Accident benefits for the owner/driver

Regarding the driving license, the court held the Insurance Company failed to meet its burden of proof; the owner's testimony that he was "assured" of the driver's license by the borrower remained uncontradicted by any documentary evidence from the insurer

The High Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment. The Insurance Company was directed to be refunded the excess amount deposited (approx. ₹7,45,000/-) from the Tribunal