Case at a Glance
The owner of a Tata Spacio died in a 2008 accident in Tehri Garhwal while travelling in his own vehicle as a passenger, with someone else driving. The Claims Tribunal found negligence but dismissed the family’s claim because an owner is not a ‘third party’. The Uttarakhand High Court reversed that, holding that the policy expressly covered passengers and charged a premium for it, so ownership alone could not defeat the claim, and awarded Rs 8,34,800 with 7% interest against the insurer.
On 17 January 2008, near Village Padagali in Tehri Garhwal, a Tata Spacio met with an accident. Its registered owner, Laxman Singh, was travelling as a passenger; respondent no. 2 was driving. His widow, mother and three minor children claimed Rs 11,25,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal, held on 18 May 2012 that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving and that there was no breach of policy conditions.
Yet the Tribunal dismissed the claim, relying on Dhanraj v. New India Assurance, (2004) 8 SCC 553, because the deceased, as owner, was not a third party and the insurer was not liable for the owner’s own death. The policy was a ‘Passengers Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy B Package’ for a nine-seater, with a premium of Rs 2,115 recorded for ‘Liability to Passenger(s) 9’.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is an insurer liable for the death of a vehicle’s owner who was travelling in it as a passenger, when the package policy expressly covers passenger liability?
Read the Policy, Not Just the Owner Label
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and on the absence of any policy breach. On liability, it said “the terms of the particular insurance policy are required to be examined.” Dhanraj was distinguishable because the policy there lacked specific owner or passenger cover. Here “the policy itself specifically provides coverage for passengers” and a separate premium was charged for it. The deceased was a passenger, not the driver. The Court also relied on National Insurance Co. v. Thungala Dhana Laxmi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1486, which holds that insurers are liable for occupants under a comprehensive or package policy, referring to an IRDA circular of 16 November 2009.
The Tribunal had therefore erred in “treating the ownership of the deceased as, by itself, sufficient to non-suit the claimants.” As there was no reliable proof of income, the Court took notional income of Rs 3,000 a month, added 40% future prospects under Pranay Sethi for a 33-year-old, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses for five dependants under Sarla Verma and applied a multiplier of 16, giving loss of dependency of Rs 6,04,800. It added Rs 40,000 consortium to each of the five claimants and Rs 15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.
What the Court Actually Held
- Whether an owner can claim depends on the terms of the particular policy; ownership alone does not bar a claim where the owner was a passenger and the policy covers passengers.
- Dhanraj was distinguished because that policy lacked specific owner or passenger cover.
- Compensation was assessed at Rs 8,34,800 (loss of dependency Rs 6,04,800, consortium Rs 2,00,000, loss of estate Rs 15,000, funeral expenses Rs 15,000).
- The award dismissing the claim was set aside; the insurer must deposit Rs 8,34,800 with 7% interest from the date of the claim petition within eight weeks.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It helps families of owners who die while travelling as passengers in their own insured vehicles.
- It shifts the focus from the ‘owner is not a third party’ label to the actual policy cover.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Thungala Dhana Laxmi on package policies.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants’ Counsel
- Obtain the policy schedule and highlight passenger cover and the premium charged for it.
- Distinguish Dhanraj where the policy covers passengers or occupants.
- Rely on Thungala Dhana Laxmi for package or comprehensive policies.
For Insurers
- Examine the policy schedule before pleading the ‘owner not a third party’ defence.
- Expect liability where a premium has been collected for passenger risk.
Key Takeaways
- Policy terms decide an owner-passenger claim.
- Passenger cover with a premium attracts liability.
- Ownership alone cannot non-suit claimants.
- Insurer to pay Rs 8,34,800 with 7% interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. According to the judgment, the owner was travelling as a passenger and respondent no. 2 was driving.
Because, relying on Dhanraj, it held that an owner is not a third party and the insurer is not liable for the owner’s own death.
In the absence of reliable proof, at a notional Rs 3,000 a month, with 40% added for future prospects.
Conclusion
The judgment corrects a common approach in owner-death claims: the question is not simply whether the deceased owned the vehicle, but whether the policy he bought covered the risk in which he died. Where it expressly covers passengers and a premium was paid for that cover, an owner travelling as a passenger is within it.
Practical takeaway: In claims for an owner killed while travelling as a passenger, check the policy schedule for passenger or occupant cover; if present, the ‘owner is not a third party’ defence may fail.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →