Legal heirs cannot recover under Section 164 for an owner-driver’s death without specific risk cover.

The claimants, legal representatives of Kalamsay Tirkey, sought ₹20,00,000 under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in a motorcycle accident on 18 November 2018.

The deceased was riding a motorcycle he owned; the claimants alleged that a dog suddenly entered the road, while the Tribunal found that the accident resulted from his rash and negligent driving.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim as not maintainable. The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Act.

The High Court also noted that the policy did not include premium-paid coverage for the driver or owner.

Whether the legal representatives could maintain a claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the motorcycle’s owner while he was riding his own vehicle

Whether the motorcycle’s insurer was liable where the deceased was the owner-driver and the policy did not provide premium-paid coverage for the owner or driver

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act was the provision under which the claim was brought, and Section 173 provided the appellate route.

The Court relied on Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co., (2020) 2 SCC 550, applying Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710. Those decisions establish that a person driving a vehicle as its owner, or having stepped into the owner’s shoes, is not a third party for purposes of a claim against that vehicle’s owner and insurer under Section 163-A; such a claim is not maintainable.

The Court applied that principle in determining maintainability under Section 164 in this case.

The deceased was riding the motorcycle that he owned and was therefore not a third party in relation to that vehicle.

Applying the principle in Ramkhiladi and Ningamma, the Court held that the claim against the motorcycle’s insurer was not maintainable.

It additionally relied on the policy and the insurer’s witness testimony showing that no premium had been paid to cover the risk of the owner or driver.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. No order was made as to costs.