Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1183
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH, COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
The National Insurance Company Limited, (Subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India), Represented By the Asstt. Manager – Appellant
Versus
Mst. Monima Begum, W/o. Lt. Mainul Ali – Respondent
MACApp./970 of 2018
Decided On : 15-06-2026
For the Appellant :Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. K. Kalita, Advocate
Under the no-fault liability statute, a person who borrows a motor vehicle assumes the position of the owner. Consequently, if such a person dies in a self-accident, their legal heirs are barred from claiming compensation, as the deceased effectively equates to the party liable for the accident.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A - Death in motor vehicle accident - Claim for compensation by legal heirs of deceased who borrowed the vehicle and was driving it at the time of accident - Maintainability of claim - Deceased borrower steps into the shoes of the vehicle owner - As per settled law, a claim under the specified provision cannot be maintained by legal heirs where the deceased was the borrower or owner, as the individual cannot be both the claimant and the party liable for compensation - Impugned award set aside on grounds of non-maintainability. (Paras 17, 20-22)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was involved in a road accident while operating a two-wheeler, resulting in fatal injuries. The legal heirs filed a claim for compensation. The insurer contended that the deceased, as the borrower of the vehicle, stepped into the shoes of the owner and thus could not maintain a petition for compensation under the said provision. The lower tribunal awarded compensation, which was subsequently challenged in appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deceased was neither an employee of the owner nor the owner himself but was a borrower, which placed him in a position identical to the owner. Consequently, he could not claim compensation as he effectively became the person against whom liability should be asserted.
Issues: Whether the legal heirs of a deceased individual who possessed and operated a borrowed vehicle at the time of a self-accident could seek compensation under the no-fault liability provision of the statute.
Ratio Decidendi: An individual who borrows a motor vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner. In instances where the owner or borrower is involved in a self-accident, the liability under the specified provision cannot be claimed as one cannot be both the claimant and the recipient of compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed; impugned award set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual context of the accident claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. legal contentions regarding borrower liability vs employer-employee relationship. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. borrowers of vehicles step into the owner's shoes; section 163a claims are excluded. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. final order setting aside the tribunal's previous compensation award. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited, impugning the judgment and award dated 19.12.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1126/2011, whereby the appellant was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 6,67,000/- to the claimants.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have filed an application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, seeking compensation on account of death of Moinul Ali, who was the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of other claimants.
4. The death of said Moinul Ali occurred in an accident, involving Motorcycle bearing Engine No. JA06EEBGA06885 and Chassis No. MBLJA06EVBA05866. It is contended in the claim petition by the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that on the fateful day, i.e., on 06.02.2011, the deceased Moinul Ali was proceeding from Tamulpur on the above-mentioned motorcycle towards Bahbari and on his way when he reached Kumarikata, he met with an accident due to mechanical defect of the motorcycle. As a result of said accident, the said Moinul Ali sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was thereafter, shifted to hospital, however, later on he succumbed to his injuries.
5. The application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the respondents/claimants was registered as MAC Case No. 1126/2011. The present appellant contested the claim of the respondents by filing written statement wherein it took various defences and pleaded that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues:
i. Whether the victim Mainul Ali died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 06-02-2011 involving vehicle bearing No. ENGINE NO.JA06EEBGA06885, CHASSIS NO. MBLJA06EVBA05866 (Motorcycle), and whether the said accident took place due to use and involvement of the said vehicle?
ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?
7. During the course of inquiry, the claimant side examined one witness and exhibited certain documents, though, the contesting opposite party Insurance Company cross-examined the claimant’s witness, however, it did not adduce any evidence on its own.
8. Ultimately, after completion of the inquiry, the claimants were awarded the compensation amount of Rs.6,67,000/- by the judgment and award dated 19.12.2013, which has been impugned in this appeal.
9. Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in awarding compensation to the claimants ignoring the fact that in the accident, which resulted into the death of said Moinul Ali, no other vehicle except the motorcycle, which he was riding at the time of accident, is involved. She submits that the offending vehicle was owned by one Jagrota Shiv Mandir Lottery Committee. She further submits that in the policy against t
