Legal Heirs Of Negligent Driver Not Entitled To Compensation Under Motor Vehicle Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 2) reiterated that the legal heirs of the deceased person driving a vehicle negligently cannot seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (“MV Act”).

The partial court working days bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had dismissed the plea filed by the deceased legal heirs for claiming compensation under Section 166 MV Act for his rash and negligent driving.

It was the case where one N.S. Ravisha died in a car accident while driving a Fiat Linea car at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The car toppled, resulting in his death. His wife, son, and parents (the appellants) filed a compensation claim of ₹80 lakhs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Arsikere.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that Ravisha was himself the tortfeasor (i.e., the wrongdoer who caused the accident), and therefore his legal heirs were not entitled to compensation.

Following this, the appellants approached the High Court.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the High Court held that because “the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being self tort-feasor, the legal heirs cannot claim any compensation for his death, otherwise it would amount to a person who committed breach getting the compensation for his own wrongs.”

An argument was raised by the Appellants that the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle through which the accident occurred; therefore, the insurance company cannot shy away from its liability to indemnify the deceased for the loss that occurred.

Rejecting the Appellants argument, the High Court referencing Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Nayan, (1977) 2 SCC 441, observed that since deceased had borrowed the vehicle from the owner (Respondent No. 1), he is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner, hence the insurance company cannot be held liable to compensate the owner or borrower for injuries/death caused by their own negligence.

Finding no good ground for interference with the impugned decision, the Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: G. NAGARATHNA & ORS. VERSUS G. MANJUNATHA & ANR. 

Click Here To Read/Download Order