NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has ruled that if a person dies while driving a car he had borrowed, his family cannot claim compensation from the car owner’s personal accident insurance through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) — especially not when the claim is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires proving someone was negligent.What was the dispute aboutThe case arose from the death of Udey Singh, who was driving his father’s Innova car when it was allegedly hit by a speeding truck that could not be traced. The car then hit another vehicle and a wall, and Udey Singh was declared dead on arrival at hospital.His mother, Simbal Singh, filed a claim under Section 166 against the insurer of the Innova, arguing that her son should be treated as a “third party” or occupant who deserved compensation under the car’s Comprehensive/Package insurance policy, which included cover for accidental injury or death.The MACT dismissed the claim in April 2025, holding that this was a contractual dispute outside its jurisdiction. The family then approached the high court to challenge the order.What the court saidJustice Anish Dayal noted that a claim under Section 166 is based on proving negligence by a driver. Since the offending truck was never traced, the only negligence that could possibly be examined was that of Udey Singh himself, as he was driving the car.“Evidently, this being a claim under Section 166 of MV Act, emanating out of a plea of negligence, legal representatives of deceased driver cannot claim that he himself was negligent and, therefore, they be entitled to compensation. This would result in an illogical absurdity and amount to somebody trying to lift themselves by their own bootstraps,” the court said.It also drew a firm line between statutory liability and contractual liability, observing that while insurers do offer personal accident cover to owner-drivers under package policies for an extra premium, this is a benefit arising purely from the insurance contract — not a legal duty created by the Motor Vehicles Act.“The claim made under the insurance policy is not a claim arising out of negligence of a party, but merely a claim where the risk of bodily injury or death of owner-driver is covered by the Insurance Company. This takes the claim into a purely contractual arena,” the court added.On this basis, the court further held that a person who has simply borrowed a vehicle cannot claim to be a “third party” in order to access benefits meant for the owner under the owner’s insurance policy — since that claim is contractual, not a right created by law.Since MACT’s powers are limited to claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court held that such contractual claims must instead be pursued before a consumer forum or civil court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the MACT’s order stands.What does Section 166 talk aboutSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act allows a person injured in a road accident, or the family of someone killed in one, to claim compensation from the person responsible for the accident (and their insurer). A claim under this section is based on proving negligence — that the accident happened because of someone’s fault, usually the driver of the vehicle involved.
