Can Borrowed Vehicle Driver Maintain Claim Before MACT Under Comprehensive Insurance Policy? Delhi High Court Answers
The Delhi High Court has held that a driver, who is neither a paid driver nor the owner, driving an insured vehicle cannot maintain a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under a Comprehensive/Package insurance policy.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that a claim which is covered by payment of additional premium is not made on the basis of statutory mandate. Therefore, it would not be a claim within the remit of MACT.
For context, the Motor Vehicles Act mandates every vehicle owner to have an "Act Policy" which covers third-party risks.
A Comprehensive/Package Policy is a contractual insurance policy which covers personal damage, personal accident, protection for occupants, etc. on payment of additional premium.
The High Court has clarified that such additional benefits under the contractual policy must be pursued before the appropriate forum like consumer court or civil court, and not before MACT.
The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by the legal representatives of a deceased borrower-driver.
They argued that unlike an Act Policy, a Comprehensive/Package Policy extends coverage to occupants of a private car and, therefore, the deceased, who was neither the owner nor a paid driver, should be treated as a third party entitled to compensation before the MACT.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court clarified that an occupant of a vehicle which has been in accident can claim for compensation on two fronts:
First, by claiming that they were third parties in an accident due to negligence of the other vehicle/offending vehicle and, therefore, owner/driver of the offending vehicle or insurer, in case the vehicle is insured, would be liable to pay the compensation.
Second, a claim made by an occupant of a car against the insurer of the vehicle in which they are travelling can only arise under Section 166 of MV Act, where negligence is alleged on the driver/owner of vehicle who was driving negligently. The occupant would, therefore, possibly be a third party qua the owner of vehicle and, therefore, the insurer of the vehicle in which they are travelling.
In both cases, negligence is either asserted on the driver of the offending vehicle or against the driver of the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling.
However, in the case at hand, the Court observed that the deceased-borrower's legal representatives sought compensation on account that he would be a third party/occupant and, therefore, would be covered under the personal accident cover, as per the 'Comprehensive/Package Policy'.
“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 held.
It added, “driver of the vehicle cannot sever himself from the fact that he was driving the vehicle and, therefore, any negligence, if at all, would be of himself…considering that the driver had borrowed the vehicle… was responsible for driving the vehicle in a diligent manner. If he did so and another offending vehicle was negligent, the claim has to be made against the insurer of offending vehicle. ”
As such, the Court upheld the MACT's dismissal of the claim petition and granted liberty to the appellant to pursue any contractual remedy available under the insurance policy before the appropriate forum.
Appearance: Mr. Varun Sarin, Ms. Parul Dutta, Advocates for Appellant; Dr. Amit George, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Advocates for respondent no.1 Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Case title: Simbal Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Anr.
Case no.: MAC.APP. 532/2025