Gujarat High Court Rules Borrower of Insured Vehicle Not a ‘Third Party’
Legal Heirs Cannot Claim No‑Fault Compensation
Court Clarifies Scope of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act
By Our Legal Correspondent
Ahmedabad: March,04 2026:
In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has held that a borrower driving an insured vehicle “steps into the shoes of the owner” and therefore cannot be treated as a third party for the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The ruling clarifies that legal heirs of such a borrower are not entitled to no‑fault compensation from the insurer.
Also Read: Actor Rajinikanth’s Property Lease Exempted from Service Tax
Background of the Case
The case involved the death of a police inspector who was driving a borrowed vehicle. His legal heirs filed a claim under Section 163A, which allows victims of motor accidents or their families to seek compensation without proving negligence.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed the petition, holding that the deceased was not a third party but had borrowed the vehicle. On appeal, Justice Nisha M. Thakore of the Gujarat High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, reiterating that a borrower assumes the legal position of the owner and cannot claim compensation against the insurer of the borrowed vehicle.
[Recommended Research Resources]
📘 Legal professionals, families and students alike will benefit from Will Writing Simplified, which covers procedure and case law in detail. BUY NOW: Amazon 🔹 Flipkart
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Employer to Deduct Salary for Wife’s Maintenance
Court’s Observations
- Borrower as Owner: The court emphasized that once a person borrows a vehicle, they step into the shoes of the owner.
- No Third‑Party Status: Such a borrower cannot be treated as a third party under insurance law.
- Section 163A Non‑Maintainable: Claims under the structured formula of Section 163A are not maintainable against the insurer in such cases.
- Legal Heirs’ Position: The heirs of the deceased borrower cannot claim compensation under the no‑fault liability scheme.
Legal Framework
Section 163A – No‑Fault Compensation
- Introduced to provide quick relief to victims of motor accidents.
- Allows compensation without proving negligence.
- Applicable only when the claimant is a third party, not the owner or borrower of the vehicle.
Section 147 – Insurance of Motor Vehicles
- Mandates insurance coverage for third‑party risks.
- Does not extend to the owner or borrower driving the vehicle.
Judicial Precedent
The ruling aligns with earlier Supreme Court judgments that clarified the distinction between third‑party liability and owner’s risk. Courts have consistently held that insurers are not liable to compensate borrowers or their heirs under no‑fault provisions.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Bank Attachment for Lack of Reasons
Larger Implications
- For Borrowers: Individuals borrowing vehicles must understand that they assume the owner’s legal position and cannot claim third‑party compensation.
- For Legal Heirs: Families of deceased borrowers cannot rely on Section 163A for relief.
- For Insurers: The judgment reinforces insurers’ limited liability to third parties, reducing misuse of no‑fault provisions.
- For Policyholders: Owners must ensure clarity in insurance coverage, especially when lending vehicles.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Manjuben alias Manjulaben Shantilal Garasia v. Sirajbhai Imamuddin Luhar provides clarity on the scope of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By holding that borrowers are not third parties, the court has reinforced the principle that no‑fault compensation is strictly for victims external to the insured vehicle. This judgment is expected to guide future claims and prevent misuse of statutory provisions.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Arbitrator Can Decide Genuineness of Arbitration Agreement as Preliminary Issue
Keywords for Faster Search
- Gujarat High Court borrower insured vehicle case
- Section 163A Motor Vehicles Act ruling
- Borrower not third-party insurance law
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gujarat
- Legal heirs compensation denial Gujarat HC
- Owner’s risk vs third‑party liability India
- Motor insurance law borrower vehicle judgment
Also Read: Maharashtra ‘Rocket Man’ Love Scam Exposes Dangers of Fake Identities