Section 166 claims fail where an owner-driver’s self-caused accident creates no third-party liability.

On 3 July 2021, Papu Debnath was riding his own Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle when, according to the claimants, the motorcycle struck or was affected by a street dog, causing him to lose control and fall. He later died from his injuries.

His family filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded them Rs. 5,00,000, although the compensation claimed or assessed was stated to be Rs. 16,09,000.

The Oriental Insurance Company appealed, arguing that the deceased was the motorcycle’s owner and rider, that no other motor vehicle was involved, and that there was no third-party liability.

1. Whether the claimants could maintain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act where the deceased was the owner and rider of the sole vehicle involved in the accident and was responsible for it.

2. Whether the insurer could be required to indemnify the insured in the absence of liability to a third party.

Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act requires an insurance policy to cover specified liabilities, including liability for death or bodily injury to a third party arising from the use of a vehicle; it does not, on the reasoning applied here, make the insurer liable to indemnify the insured where no third-party liability arises.

The Court also referred to Section 166 of the Act in considering the maintainability of the claim.

Relying on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 263, the Court applied the principle that where the deceased owner was driving the vehicle, was responsible for the accident, and no other motor vehicle was involved, the insurer had no liability to indemnify the insured.

The Court found the case materially similar to Jhuma Saha: Papu Debnath was riding his own motorcycle, and the accident involved no other motor vehicle.

It treated the deceased as responsible for the accident and concluded that the claim did not involve third-party liability for which the insurer could be required to indemnify the insured.

On that basis, it held that the Tribunal’s award could not stand.

The judgment refers to Section 147(1)(a) in its concluding reasoning, although the provision it quotes and discusses is Section 147(1)(b).

It left the claimants at liberty to approach the appropriate forum and observed that the time spent pursuing the matter could be condoned by that forum if they sought further redress.