The Supreme Court has ruled that an insurance company was not liable to pay compensation in a road accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act, if the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the deceased.
The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the claim filed by the wife, son and parents of one NS Ravisha, who died in a car crash in Karnataka in 2014.
The Apex Court upheld the November 2024 order of the Karnataka High Court, which had rejected the family’s compensation claim of Rs 80 lakh against United India Insurance Company.
The High Court held that since the accident was caused solely due to Ravisha’s own fault, the claim could not be sustained under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Police said the accident occurred on June 18, 2014, when Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea car from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town, accompanied by his father, sister and her children.
Ravisha was speeding, violated traffic rules and lost control of the vehicle near Mylanahalli gate. The car toppled, resulting in his death from head injuries, it added.
A first information report (FIR) was registered under Sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 337 (causing hurt to any person by doing an act that endangers human life or personal safety through rashness or negligence), and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. A charge sheet was consequently filed blaming Ravisha for the incident.
Ravisha’s family approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), alleging that a tyre burst had caused the accident. The Tribunal dismissed their claim on the grounds that the deceased was a self-tortfeasor and that the legal heirs of a person who caused an accident could not claim compensation for his death.
The family challenged the verdict in the High Court, which observed that the family’s claim about a tyre burst was an afterthought and contrary to their original pleadings.
While the family later tried to amend their petition to include the tyre burst theory, their application had already been dismissed by the MACT and was never challenged, noted the High Court.
It further took into consideration the police records and motor vehicle inspection report, which indicated that the tyre had burst due to the impact of the accident, not before it.
Agreeing with the High Court’s observations, the Apex Court rejected the family’s claim on the grounds that Ravisha had borrowed the car from its owner and, in doing so, stepped into the shoes of the owner. Therefore, as a tortfeasor himself, his family was not entitled to claim compensation under the insurance policy, which only indemnified against third-party liability.
The post Insurance company not liable to pay compensation in road accident caused by rash driving of deceased: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.