01Facts
Vinod Kumar Bhoj died when a car owned by his wife, which he was driving to work, went off the road and fell into a gorge.
¶ 3–5, 9–11, 12His mother and two children sought compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
¶ 3–5, 9–11, 12The Tribunal awarded them ₹63,70,000 with interest, holding the insurer liable.
¶ 3–5, 9–11, 12The insurer appealed, contending that Bhoj, as the borrower and driver of the vehicle, was not a third party and that the claimants were limited to the personal-accident cover of ₹2,00,000.
¶ 3–5, 9–11, 1202Issues
i.Whether a person driving a vehicle borrowed from its owner is a “third party” entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
¶ 12–13, 19–20ii.If not, whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the personal-accident cover and, if so, in what amount.
¶ 12, 17, 20–2203Law Applied
Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provide for motor-accident compensation, including claims based on third-party liability.
¶ 19A person who borrows a vehicle and drives it steps into the shoes of its owner and is not a third party for the purposes of such a claim; Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co., (2020) 2 SCC 550, was relied on for this principle.
¶ 19The Court also considered National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, 2013 (1) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.), concerning coverage of occupants under a comprehensive/package policy, and distinguished it on the basis that Bhoj was the driver, not an occupant.
¶ 18The Court followed the Uttarakhand High Court decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asifa, 2015 (1) T.A.C. 2008 (Uttara.), and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kumari Ashmita Pant, 2009 (1) U.D. 171, treating a spouse driving the owner’s vehicle as owner-cum-driver rather than a third party.
¶ 16–17The insurer accepted that the heirs were entitled to ₹2,00,000 under the personal-accident cover.
¶ 17Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140Section 166
04Reasoning
The Court found that Bhoj was driving a car owned by his wife and had borrowed it from her.
¶ 16–20Applying Ramkhiladi and the cited Uttarakhand decisions, it held that he had stepped into the owner’s shoes and was therefore not a third party for a claim under Section 166.
¶ 16–20The Court rejected reliance on Balakrishnan because that case concerned an occupant, whereas Bhoj was the driver.
¶ 18It consequently held that the Tribunal’s award of ₹63,70,000 was erroneous; the claimants’ recoverable amount was limited to the personal-accident cover accepted by the insurer.
¶ 20–2205Holding
The appeal was partly allowed, and the Tribunal’s award was modified.
¶ 22–26The claimants were held entitled to ₹2,00,000 under the personal-accident cover, if not already paid, with interest at 7% per annum from the date the claim application was filed.
¶ 22–26The Tribunal’s record and the statutory deposit were directed to be remitted to the Tribunal.
¶ 22–26Original Court PDF
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDvsBHAGULI DEVI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
