Man Who Died After Crashing Borrowed Car Was Not A Third Party, Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Dismissal Of Family’s Section 164 Claim

On 22 May 2023, Ishan Kumar was driving a car owned by respondent No. 1 when it struck a roadside divider.

He sustained injuries and died during treatment on 24 May 2023.

His legal heirs filed a claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim as not maintainable, finding that Ishan was driving the borrowed car and therefore did not qualify as a third party.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Act.

The High Court first condoned the 60-day delay in filing the appeal.

The Court considered Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the claim had been brought, and Section 173, under which the appeal was filed.

Relying on Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co., (2020) 2 SCC 550, and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, it applied the principle that a person who borrows and drives a vehicle steps into the owner’s shoes and is not a third party in respect of that vehicle; the Court also referred to the rule that Section 163-A does not apply where the vehicle’s owner is himself involved in the accident.

The Tribunal’s findings, based on the evidence and the panchnama, were that the deceased was driving the respondent-owner’s car at the time of the accident and that there was no evidence he was employed under the owner’s control.

Applying the cited precedents, the High Court treated the deceased as having stepped into the owner’s shoes, rather than as a third party.

It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the claim was not maintainable.

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.