A person driving a motor vehicle with the permission of the registered owner, who holds a policy with personal accident coverage for the owner-driver, steps into the shoes of the owner and is entitled to claim the benefits of personal accident coverage under the insurance contract.

Judgment :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The United India Insurance Company is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.12.2025 of a learned Single Judge that dismissed a writ petition filed by it, assailing an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services [PLA], Kozhikode.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:

The appellant had issued a motor cycle/scooter liability only policy to cover vehicle No.KL 49B 0752 owned by the 2^nd respondent. As per the said policy, compulsory personal accident coverage for the owner/driver was also granted subject to the conditions prescribed in the policy document. Those conditions stipulated that the owner - driver had to be the registered owner of the vehicle, that the owner - driver was the insured person and that the owner- driver had to hold an effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

3. In the instant case, the respondents lodged a claim under the policy pursuant to the accidental death of their son that occurred on 20.12.2023 while he was driving the insured vehicle. The said claim was rejected by the appellant herein on the contention that the son of the respondents was not the insured person named in the policy. The respondents therefore approached the PLA, which, after hearing the parties, found in favour of the respondents herein by rejecting the contention of the appellant Insurance Company. At paragraph 12 of its award, the PLA found as follows:

“12. Above stated clauses/conditions are included in Ext.B1 policy schedule. Respondent Insurance company rejected first applicant's PA claim contending that the PA cover is purely a contractual liability and that cover is not available to any other person driving/riding the insured vehicle except the insured/registered owner. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent insurance company relied upon the decisions in United India Insurance Company Ltd v Vijayarajan and Others – 2009 (3) KHC 158, New India Assurance Co. Ltd v Sujit Mohan and Another - 2022 KHC 4400, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v Rajni Devi and Others - 2008 KHC 4640 and Deepika Sharma and Others v Deepak – 2019 ICO 4168 to fortify the contention of the respondent insurance company. The dictum laid down in those cases is not applicable in this case because separate premium was collected from the second petitioner for PA cover. In this case, the question to be considered is whether a borrowed rider/driver of a motor vehicle would step into the shoes of owner/insured or not for the purpose of PA cover benefit. The decisions cited by the respondent insurance company are not useful in this case. The applicants contended that a person driving a motor vehicle having PA cover for owner/driver with registered owner's permission steps into the shoes of the registered owner and eligible for getting PA cover benefits under the policy. Owner cum driver cannot be split up to narrow down the enforceability of the policy to driver only if he is also owner of the vehicle. (National Insurance Co. Ltd v Krishnan - 2014 KHC 5694 and Vasuki and Another v Shanthi and Another - 2021 KHC 6627) A borrowed driver is also eligible for obtaining PA cover ( Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another - 2020 KHC 6008 and Kunjila v. Mary - 2024 KHC 219). The respondent insurance company ought not to have declined first applicant's claim stating flimsy or technical grounds. (Gurmel Singh v Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506 and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v K. Narasimhareddy - CA.No.7694/2013 (SC). For the reasons and circumstances mentioned above,