Legal Representative of Tortfeasor Borrower Restricted to Personal Accident Cover Terms for Compensation Claims

On February 5, 2015, the deceased, Srinivas Harikantra, was riding a motorcycle when he dashed against an electric pole, resulting in his death

The deceased’s parents and sister filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988

The insurer contested the claim, producing an FSL report (Ex.R.2) proving the deceased had a blood alcohol content of 102.64 mg/100 ml, far exceeding the legal limit

The Tribunal initially awarded ₹3,44,364/-, holding the insurer liable

The insurer appealed to the High Court, arguing that as the deceased was the "tortfeasor" (wrongdoer) and in an intoxicated state, his legal representatives stepped into his shoes and were not entitled to statutory compensation beyond the contractual Personal Accident (PA) cover

Whether the legal representatives of a deceased tortfeasor, who was in an intoxicated state, are entitled to statutory compensation under the MV Act or are restricted to the contractual insurance coverage?

The court primarily applied Section 163-A of the MV Act regarding "no-fault liability" and the restriction of its scope in cases involving the owner or a permissive user who acts as a tortfeasor

The court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020), which established that a borrower/permissive user steps into the shoes of the owner and cannot maintain a claim against their own insurer as a "third party," restricting their claim to the specific Personal Accident (PA) cover provided in the policy

The court also noted Section 185 of the MV Act, which criminalizes driving with blood alcohol levels exceeding 30 mg/100 ml

The court determined that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, making him the tortfeasor

While Section 163-A is a "no-fault" provision, the court clarified that it does not entitle a person to claim against their own insurance when they are at fault and not a "third party"

The court rejected the claimants' argument for increased compensation under the amended Section 164 (₹5,00,000/-), ruling that those amendments do not override the principle that a tortfeasor cannot benefit from their own wrong unless specifically covered by the contract

Because the deceased was a permissive user, he stepped into the shoes of the owner

Per the insurance policy (Ex.R.4), the "Compulsory PA cover for owner-driver" was limited to ₹1,00,000/-

Consequently, the Tribunal’s use of Schedule II to calculate higher compensation was deemed improper

The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the Tribunal’s award from ₹3,44,364/- to ₹1,00,000/-

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount within eight weeks