Case at a Glance
A man died on 29 March 2023 while driving a car registered in another person’s name, in an accident involving an unidentified truck. His widow, children and mother claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the car’s owner and insurer, but the Tribunal at Rajnandgaon dismissed the claim. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the dismissal at the admission stage: following Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company, a person driving a vehicle borrowed from its owner steps into the owner’s shoes, and no personal accident cover was shown to be in force.
The deceased was driving a car (JH-04-U/5287) owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. when the accident occurred on 29 March 2023. The other vehicle involved was an unidentified truck, whose driver, owner and insurer could therefore not be made parties.
His family filed MACC No. 192/2023 before the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon. The Tribunal found that the personal accident (PA) cover premium had been paid only for the period 20 June 2020 to 19 June 2021 (Ex. D/1), with no later premium, and by award dated 7 September 2026 dismissed the claim. The family appealed to the High Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the family of a person who died while driving a car borrowed from its owner claim compensation from that car’s owner and insurer as a third party?
The ‘stepping into the owner’s shoes’ rule
The High Court relied on Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 05 SC CK 0200, (2009) 13 SCC 710, and Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another, (2020) 01 SC CK 0009, (2020) 2 SCC 550, in which the Supreme Court addressed cases “where the deceased was himself driving a vehicle borrowed from its owner.” Applying that principle, the Court held that the deceased “would be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the car”, and so could not be treated as a third party for a claim against that car’s owner and insurer.
The Court then examined whether any personal accident cover could help the claimants. It found “no document or evidence available on record to establish that any Personal Accident (PA) cover was effective” on the date of the accident; the only premium proved related to 2020–21. Finding no error of law or fact in the Tribunal’s award, it dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, without issuing notice to the respondents.
What the Court Actually Held
- A person who dies while driving a vehicle borrowed from its owner steps into the owner’s shoes and is not a third party for a Section 166 claim against that vehicle’s owner and insurer.
- The principle in Ningamma and Ramkhiladi applied to the facts.
- No personal accident cover was proved to be in force on the date of the accident; premium had been paid only for 20 June 2020 to 19 June 2021.
- The Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim was upheld and the appeal dismissed at the admission stage.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many people drive cars borrowed from relatives or friends; the ruling shows the limits of third-party insurance in such cases.
- It underlines the importance of keeping personal accident cover for owner-drivers alive by renewing premiums.
- It reminds claimants to identify the correct liable party — here the other vehicle was untraced.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- A claim against the borrowed vehicle’s own insurer may fail if the deceased was its driver.
- Check whether a valid personal accident cover existed on the accident date and produce the policy.
- Where the other vehicle is unidentified, explore other statutory remedies available for such accidents.
For Counsel
- Cite Ningamma (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Ramkhiladi (2020) 2 SCC 550 on the borrower-driver rule.
- Prove the PA cover and premium payment for the period covering the accident.
- Consider whether the claim should instead be directed at the other offending vehicle.
Key Takeaways
- Borrower-driver steps into the owner’s shoes.
- Such a driver is not a third party against the car’s own insurer.
- Lapsed PA cover gave no relief.
- Appeal dismissed at admission stage.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I borrow a friend’s car and have an accident, can my family claim from that car’s insurer?
In this case the High Court, following Ningamma and Ramkhiladi, held that the borrower-driver steps into the owner’s shoes and is not a third party, so the claim against that car’s owner and insurer failed.
Would personal accident cover have helped?
Possibly, but the Court found no evidence that any PA cover was in force on the accident date; premium had been paid only for 2020–21.
Did the High Court hear the insurer?
No. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage without notice to the respondents.
Conclusion
Sohadra Soni is a short but instructive order applying settled Supreme Court law: the driver of a borrowed vehicle is treated as its owner for insurance purposes, and only a live personal accident cover can bridge that gap.
Practical takeaway: Before filing a claim for a borrower-driver, verify whether a personal accident cover was in force and whether another vehicle’s insurer can be proceeded against.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com