Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Some judgments clarify that the 'pay and recover' principle applies only to third-party liabilities, not to occupants or gratuitous passengers ["HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. , through its Authorized Representative VS Rajbala, W/o. Shri Butiram Jat - Rajasthan"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Insurance Company vs Claimants - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. VS S. Krishnasamy - Madras"]- ["THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNIT vs RADHIKA - Madras"]- ["THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD vs V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN - Madras"]- ["INDHCHC_HCMA010091482016"]- ["HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. , through its Authorized Representative VS Rajbala, W/o. Shri Butiram Jat - Rajasthan"]- KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR, AIR 1998 SC 1433- ["M."], 2001 ACJ 2059 (SC)- ["M/S ARRK TOOLING SERMO INDIA PVT LTD vs SMT INDIRA N KATTI - Karnataka"]
Imagine you're riding in a friend's private car, enjoying the journey, when suddenly the vehicle overturns. Tragically, a passenger loses their life. The car has only third-party insurance—common for many private vehicles. The burning question arises: Whether a person travelling in a private car which has only third party insurance had died when the car overturned, whether the passenger is entitled to get MACT award?
This scenario raises critical issues under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA), particularly Sections 147 and 149 concerning insurance coverage and liability. In this post, we delve into the legal landscape, judicial precedents, and practical implications to clarify passengers' rights. Note: This is general information based on established case law; consult a legal professional for advice specific to your situation.
Passengers in private vehicles insured under 'Act only' or third-party liability policies typically do not have an automatic right to compensation from the insurer in overturning accidents. Courts have repeatedly held that such policies cover third-party liabilities only, excluding gratuitous (free-riding) or unauthorized passengers who are occupants of the vehicle. Coverage for passengers requires explicit policy extensions and additional premiums. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. V/s DR. JAYESH V. RAVAL - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 350Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Karur VS Kaliyammal - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3237
Key reasons include:- Third-party definition: Under Section 145(g) MVA, a third party is someone external to the vehicle, not an occupant. Deceased Palanisamy was only an occupant of the private car, cannot be considered as 'third party' of the vehicle and the policy is covered risks to the third party alone. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED, vs RADHIKA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43263- Policy scope: Act policies mandate coverage for third parties hit by the vehicle, not those inside it during self-accidents like overturns. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Usha, W/o.Sahadevan - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2797- No gratuitous passenger coverage: The Tata sumo is a private car in which the deceased Kalimuthu travelled as a gratuitous passenger. He cannot be considered as third party of the vehicle. United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet VS N. Thangavel - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1863
Understanding policy types is crucial:
These are statutory minimums under Section 147 MVA, covering:- Death or injury to third parties (external victims).- Property damage up to specified limits.
They exclude occupants, especially gratuitous ones. Act only policies generally do not cover gratuitous or unauthorized passengers, and the insurer's liability is confined to third-party claims. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Usha, W/o.Sahadevan - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2797New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Meenakshi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 523
These may cover passengers but only if explicitly stated and extra premiums paid. The risk of occupant in a private Car can only be covered by paying premium, and without such coverage, the insurer is not liable. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Meenakshi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 523 Courts distinguish: Act policies limit to third parties, while comprehensive ones might extend via contract. Keenara Industries Private Limited VS Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 375
From other rulings: It is his submission that the occupant of the private car is covered only in the case of 'Comprehensive' and 'Package Policy'. Shiv Lochan Singh @ Bhola VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2691 However, even here, overturn accidents (no external vehicle) often hinge on policy wording.
Indian courts, including Supreme Court and High Courts, have solidified this position:
Further, in Branch Manager The New India Assurance Co Ltd VS Mahadev Pandurang Patil - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 930, it was held: Gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or reward in a vehicle other than a public service vehicle, cannot be constructed as third parties.
These precedents apply to overturns, as liability arises from the driver's negligence but insurer obligation is policy-bound. Tribunals awarding against insurers often face reversal on appeal. United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet VS N. Thangavel - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1863
Rare exceptions exist:- Explicit passenger coverage: If the policy names passengers or includes 'occupant risk' with extra premium.- Public service vehicles: Different rules apply (e.g., taxis), but private cars are excluded. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Alka Mangla - 2008 Supreme(Del) 270- Pay and Recover principle: Sometimes insurers pay claimants then recover from owners, but not in pure Act policies for gratuitous passengers. The law is not in favor of pay and recover in cases of this nature. (From analysis in United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet VS N. Thangavel - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1863)- Pillion riders or family: Debated, but generally not covered without premium. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Alka Mangla - 2008 Supreme(Del) 270 One case noted family members under package policies might qualify, but overturns test this. Shiv Lochan Singh @ Bhola VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2691
Insurance against third party risks does not cover gratuitous passengers in private cars if the vehicle is not specifically covered for such passengers and the premium for such coverage has not been paid. National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Afroza - 2014 Supreme(J&K) 215
In self-accidents like overturns (no other vehicle), claims weaken further since no external third party exists. Passengers may claim against the owner/driver personally under Section 166 MVA, but insurers escape via policy limits. If any amount is paid by the insurance company to the claimants, the insurance company is entitled to get back the same. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED, vs RADHIKA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43263
Quantum under Section 163A (no-fault) is possible against owner, but not insurer typically. Courts scrutinize: negligence proof needed, policy review mandatory. M.. Radha VS Mahadevappa - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 1241
Seek tribunal awards judiciously; appeals often favor insurers in Act policies. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. V/s DR. JAYESH V. RAVAL - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 350
In summary, while sympathy runs high in tragedies, law prioritizes policy terms. The passenger travelling in a motor car is not a 'Third Party'. Shiv Lochan Singh @ Bhola VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2691 Verify coverage proactively. For personalized guidance, contact a motor accident claims expert.
This post references judgments like NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. V/s DR. JAYESH V. RAVAL - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 350, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Usha, W/o.Sahadevan - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2797, Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Karur VS Kaliyammal - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3237, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Meenakshi - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 523, and others for educational purposes. Laws evolve; stay updated.
#PassengerRights, #MotorInsurance, #MACTClaims
The Claims Tribunal has committed error in holding that the deceased was a third party without appreciating the evidence that deceased was a passenger travelling in the private car and, therefore, by virtue of S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, risk of the passengers other than a public service ... So it is clear that deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger and insurance company did not take any premium for unn....
Further, the deceased was travelling in the car belonging to one Valliappan as an occupant. Since the deceased is only an occupant of the private car, he cannot be termed as third party to the Insurance Company. ... The question to be decided is whether the Insurer is liable to satisfy the claim for compensation made by a person travelling gratuitously in the Car. ... As per the endorsement therei....
a gratuitous passenger, nor fare paying passenger and the deceased is coming under the category of 'third party' and therefore, there is no need to pay additional premium to cover the risk or death of persons in the private car and the Insurance company ought to have satisfied the entire award amount ... R.1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. As per the endorsement therein, it is a private Car ....
deceased Palanisamy was only an occupant of the private car, cannot be considered as 'third party' of the vehicle and the policy is covered risks to the third party alone. ... If any amount is paid by the insurance company to the claimants, the insurance company is entitled to get back the same. ... 8.The dispute before this Court is whether the pillion rider can be tre....
an occupant of the private car, cannot be considered as 'third party' of the vehicle and the policy is covered risks to the third party alone. ... Further, the deceased was travelling in the car belonging to one Valliappan as an occupant. Since the deceased is only an occupant of the private car, he cannot be termed as '3rd party' to the Insurance Company. ... cannot be termed as....
The Tata sumo is a private car in which the deceased Kalimuthu travelled as a gratuitous passenger. He cannot be considered as third party of the vehicle. The Third party coverage will not include a gratuitous passenger in a private car. ... parties including the person travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger or coolie. ... In the light of the Full Ben....
R.1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. As per the endorsement therein, it is a private Car Act Policy. Premium has been paid on three heads. Third party Rs. 240/-, driver Rs. 15/-, UNTPPL (Unlimited Third party Property Liability) Rs. 50/-. ... of the car, cannot be considered as third party of the vehicle and the policy is covered risks to the third party alone. ... Further, t....
Whether a Gratuitous Passenger travelling in a private car would fall within the meaning of 'third party' and covered by 'Statutory Policy' within the meaning of S. 147 of the Act is no more debatable, but in the instant case in contra distinction to this, on perusal of the policy it becomes manifest ... The important question of law which has come before this Court is that whether the expression "any person" in S. 147 of the Motor ....
Necessity for Insurance against Third Party Risks (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may ... Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pilli....
R.1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. As per the endorsement therein, it is a private Car Act Policy. Premium has been paid on three heads. Third party Rs. 240/-, driver Rs. 15/-, UNTPPL (Unlimited Third party Property Liability) Rs. 50/-. ... Further, the deceased was travelling in the car belonging to one Valliappan as an occupant. Since the deceased is only an occupant of the private car, he....
It is his submission that the occupant of the private car is covered only in the case of "Comprehensive" and "Package Policy". According to learned counsel, the passengers of insured vehicle shall be covered only if extra premium is paid for their cover, as per directions of IRDA/IMT Advisory Committee. Still further, it is submitted that the passenger travelling in a motor car is not a 'Third Party'. It is submitted that the term 'Third Party' means only a person who gets injury/damage due to being hit by the insured vehicle.
Vs. Mahadev Pandurang Patil & Anr., ILR 2011 Kar 850, v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Shankar Jadhav & Another (M.F.A.Nos.6851/2006 and connected matters disposed of on 11.04.2011). “Whether the occupant/inmate of a private car is a third party and the risk of the said third party whether is covered under the Insurance Policy at Ex.R.1.?”
The Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Surinder Kumar and others reported in 2009 (2) JKJ HC 695. It being the undisputed case of the parties that the deceased met with a fatal accident involving use of offending vehicle which was covered by insurance against 3rd party risks, it is to be determined whether the occupant of a private car travelling as a gratuitous passenger is governed by the insurance against the 3rd party risks.
7. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as under: Once the insurance policy is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer and policy is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer and such policy is issued insuring persons referred to in subsection (i) of Section 147, then the liability of the insurer is unlimited as far as third party is concerned and in respect of the damage to any property of the concerned party, it is up Rs. 6,000/-. Whether an occupant/passenger/inmate of a private car is a third part....
So it is in this context, we have to find out whether an inmate/passenger or an occupant of a private car is a third party. Whether an occupant/passenger/inmate of a private car is a third party as defined under Section 145(g) r/w. Once the insurance policy is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer and such policy is issued, insuring persons referred to in Sub-section (i) of Section 147, then, the liability of the insurer is unlimited as far as third party is concerned and in respect of the damage to any property of the concerned party, it is up R....
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
