Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner, not a third party, when involved in an accident. This principle is consistently upheld across multiple judgments, indicating that such a borrower is considered as occupying the position of the owner for the purposes of liability and claim proceedings ["New India Assurance Company Limited VS Maddineni Pushpavathi W/o Late M. Venkatarangaiah - Andhra Pradesh"], ["National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Chief Regional Manager VS Joya Das, W/o. Sri Akshay Das - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 961"], ["Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. VS M. Thamizharasi W/o. Murugan - Madras"].
The landmark judgment in Ningamma (supra) explicitly states that where a person, other than a paid driver, uses a vehicle owned by somebody else, steps into the shoes of the real owner ["National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Chief Regional Manager VS Joya Das, W/o. Sri Akshay Das - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 961"]. This means that a borrower, who is not the registered owner but uses the vehicle with permission, is deemed to have assumed the owner’s role in legal and insurance contexts.
As a consequence, such borrowers are generally not considered third parties under the Motor Vehicles Act, and claims for compensation under Section 163-A are not maintainable against the owner or insurer when the injured is a borrower stepping into the owner's shoes ["New India Assurance Company Limited VS Maddineni Pushpavathi W/o Late M. Venkatarangaiah - Andhra Pradesh"], ["National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Chief Regional Manager VS Joya Das, W/o. Sri Akshay Das - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 961"], ["Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. VS M. Thamizharasi W/o. Murugan - Madras"], ["THE MANAGER vs SMT. L. RADHA - Karnataka"].
Several judgments emphasize that because the borrower steps into the shoes of the owner, they are not entitled to claim compensation as a third party. The insurance policy, which covers third-party risks, does not extend coverage to the borrower in their capacity as the owner’s substitute, and thus, the legal heirs or the borrower cannot claim under Section 163-A ["New India Assurance Company Limited VS Maddineni Pushpavathi W/o Late M. Venkatarangaiah - Andhra Pradesh"], ["National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Chief Regional Manager VS Joya Das, W/o. Sri Akshay Das - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 961"], ["Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. VS M. Thamizharasi W/o. Murugan - Madras"], ["THE MANAGER vs SMT. L. RADHA - Karnataka"], ["MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS L. RADHA, W/O LATE S. NAGARAJU - Karnataka"].
In summary, the legal position is that a borrower of a vehicle, who uses it with permission, is regarded as occupying the owner’s position for liability and claim purposes. Therefore, such a borrower or their legal heirs cannot maintain a claim as a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the insurance coverage does not extend to them in this capacity ["New India Assurance Company Limited VS Maddineni Pushpavathi W/o Late M. Venkatarangaiah - Andhra Pradesh"], ["National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Chief Regional Manager VS Joya Das, W/o. Sri Akshay Das - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 961"], ["Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. VS M. Thamizharasi W/o. Murugan - Madras"], ["THE MANAGER vs SMT. L. RADHA - Karnataka"].
References:- ["New India Assurance Company Limited VS Maddineni Pushpavathi W/o Late M. Venkatarangaiah - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By The Chief Regional Manager VS Joya Das, W/o. Sri Akshay Das - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 961"]- ["Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. VS M. Thamizharasi W/o. Murugan - Madras"]- ["THE MANAGER vs SMT. L. RADHA - Karnataka"]- ["MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS L. RADHA, W/O LATE S. NAGARAJU - Karnataka"]- ["THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LT vs V.VIJI - Madras"]- ["SRI.RACHAIAH vs SRI.JAYATHIRTHA K.R. - Karnataka"]- ["THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs K.PAZHANIVEL - Madras"]- ["NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs LAKHBIR KAUR AND ANR. - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["New India Assurance Co. Ltd VS Bibek Barhoi - Gauhati"]- ["HARISH J vs IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., - Karnataka"]- ["NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD vs SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR - Karnataka"]- ["K. Indumathi, W/o. Late V. Vasudevan VS M. Periyasamy, S/o. Marappan - Madras"]- ["MEGALA Vs SUNDARAVEL - Madras"]- ["THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LT vs V.VIJI - Madras"]- ["HARISH J vs IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., - Karnataka"]- ["NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD vs SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR - Karnataka"]- ["Branch Manager, M/s. New India Assurance Co Ltd. , Vellore VS Rajaram - Madras"]
In the realm of motor accident compensation claims in India, a frequent point of confusion arises: Does a borrower of a vehicle step into the shoes of the owner and thus not qualify as a third party? This question is pivotal for claimants, insurers, and legal practitioners navigating the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). Understanding this principle can determine the success or failure of a claim under sections like 163A.
Typically, insurance policies under the MV Act protect third parties—those unrelated to the vehicle owner—against injuries or death caused by the insured vehicle. However, when someone borrows a vehicle, courts have consistently ruled that they assume the owner's position, disqualifying them from third-party benefits. This blog post delves into the legal reasoning, landmark judgments, and practical implications, drawing from authoritative case law.
The foundational rule is clear: a borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and cannot be treated as a third party for compensation claims. This principle ensures that insurance payouts are reserved for true third parties, preventing owners (or their proxies) from claiming against themselves. [
#MVActClaims, #ThirdPartyInsurance, #VehicleBorrower
was driving the vehicle is a third party being not registered owner of it, and that the petitioners are entitled for compensation, even though the deceased was not a registered owner of the vehicle.” ... United India Insurance Company and another, in similar circumstances, on a question, ‘whether the deceased not being a third party to the vehicle, being in the shoes#HL....
In Ningamma (supra), it has been held that wherever a person, other than a paid driver, uses a vehicle owned by somebody else, steps into the shoes of the real owner. In that case, the user of the borrowed vehicle becomes the first party, not the third party. ... The appellant Insurance Company contested the claim petition by stating that the deceased was not a third party as bec....
Act, since the deceased - Murugan as a borrower of the vehicle, steps into the shoes of the owner (1st respondent) and hence, not a third party. 19. ... Whether the deceased not being a third party to Vehicle No. RJ 02 SA 7811 being in the shoes of the owner can maintain the claim under Section 163-A of the Act from the owner ....
The observation of the Punjab and Haryana judgment that he became third party cannot be accepted, as the Apex Court held that he steps into the shoes of the owner. It cannot be interpreted as to the convenience of the insurance company. For all the purpose, he steps into the shoes of the owner. ... But the High Court has held that the claimants are not entitled for PA claim as the borrower though step into the #HL_....
Once the borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and not entitled for compensation under the borrower steps into the shoes of the owner. ... available to a third party by borrowing the injury suffered by him personally and is not liable to a third party by borrowing the vehicle
However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Sec. 163-A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Sec. 163-A of the Act against the owner ... respondent no. 1 has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle, that is, the respondent no. 2 herein, and is therefor....
The learned counsel further submitted that as per the contract of insurance, the appellant is liable to pay compensation only to the owner/driver and not to a third party. Admittedly, the deceased was a third party. ... Ltd.], has held that the borrower of the motorcycle steps into the shoes of the owner. In the present case, the deceased borrowed motorcycle from the owner, 5th respondent herein a....
In Ningamma's case a categoric finding had been given so far as the claim made by the borrower of a motor vehicle was concerned. In the present case, the deceased was a borrower and he stepped into the shoes of the owner and was not a third party. ... only payable to the third party involved in the accident and liability under Section 163-A cannot be on the owner of the vehicle. ....
He steps in the shoes of owner of the vehicle. The policy of insurance purchased by respondent No.1 covers the risk of third party. The legal heirs of the borrower of the vehicle will not become the third party. Therefore, recipient and payer of the compensation cannot be one and the same. ... Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Ss.163-A and 147 - Claim petition under S.163-A, held, not ma....
or borrower of vehicle is not maintainable as borrower steps into the shoes of a third party he is entitled for compensation. ... and had stepped into the shoes of the owner. ... Since the deceased was a borrower of the vehicle he had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and p style="position
The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3538/2009 in the case of Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. held that borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, borrower of the vehicle or his legal heirs are not entitled for compensation. The Tribunal has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, wherein it is held that when a petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act by heirs of owner of vehicle or by heirs of borrower of the vehicle who step into the shoes of the owner for the death of owner or borrower is maintainable and ultimate liability under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act is on the owner of the vehicle and a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a person on whom the liability falls; Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to third party and not the owner; deceased stepped into the ....
Merely, own use of motor vehicle by owner / borrower / permissive user does not entitle such persons to maintain, Section 163-A petition is against the insurer of their own / borrowed vehicle. “Claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable by borrower / permissive user of vehicle against owner or insurer of said vehicle, as such borrower permissive user steps into shoes of owner and the owner cannot both the claimant and the recipient. In a claim under Section 163 A of M.V. Act, the deceased / victim has to be a third party in relation to ....
It is submitted that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court has held that the borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and, therefore, the borrower of the vehicle or his legal representatives are not entitled to compensation from the insurer under the Act. It is submitted that the deceased in the present case has stepped into the shoes of the owner and therefore not entitled to any third party compensation from the insured vehicle; and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi reported ....
In the said case, the Apex Court held that the borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner and in this case he is not the borrower. The principles laid down in the judgment of Ningamma's case (supra) is also not applicable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
