Section 164 does not cover a deceased rider who steps into the vehicle owner’s shoes.

On 15 November 2021, Mahendra Gilahare, aged approximately 29 years, was riding motorcycle No. CG-04-NF-2774 when a cow allegedly came onto the road near Bauji Dhaba, causing the motorcycle to collide with it. Mahendra sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment on 18 November 2021.

The motorcycle was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2. His widow and two minor children sought compensation of ₹5,70,000 under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident resulted from the deceased’s rash and negligent riding and dismissed the claim as not maintainable, since the deceased was the rider of the insured vehicle and not a third party. The claimants challenged that dismissal under Section 173 of the Act.

Whether the legal representatives of a deceased rider can maintain a compensation claim under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle involved in a self-accident?

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation where no premium had been paid for coverage of the owner or driver under the insurance policy?

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for compensation on a no-fault basis in specified cases, but the statutory scheme does not extend such compensation to the owner or a person who has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the offending vehicle.

Relying on Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, and Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co., (2020) 2 SCC 550, the Court held that a claim under the analogous no-fault provision of Section 163-A is not maintainable where the deceased was himself the owner or rider of the vehicle involved in the accident.

A person driving the vehicle in such circumstances is not a third party vis-à-vis that vehicle.

Further, an insurer is not liable for the owner/driver’s risk where no specific premium has been paid for such coverage.

The Tribunal found that Mahendra himself was riding the motorcycle and that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving.

Therefore, he was not a third party to the offending vehicle but its rider, and the claimants could not invoke the statutory no-fault remedy against the owner and insurer of that same vehicle.

Applying Ningamma and Ramkhiladi, the Court treated the deceased as having stepped into the shoes of the owner for purposes of the claim.

The insurance policy and the testimony of the insurer’s witness further established that no premium had been paid to cover the risk of the owner or driver.

Accordingly, neither the statutory claim nor the insurance policy created liability in favour of the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, the Tribunal’s award was affirmed, and no order as to costs was made.