Dismissed¶33

Nantha Kumar v. Kesavan

Madras HC5 Feb 2025CMA/3669/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrower of insured vehicle not entitled to owner-cum-driver personal accident cover based on extra premium; owner not liable where accident caused by unknown vehicle; borrower cannot be tortfeasor and claimant/beneficiary; Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 appeal against dismissal of MCOP claim; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Karaikal; United India Insurance Company Ltd.; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The personal accident coverage based on extra premium is applicable only to the owner-cum-driver of the insured vehicle and not to a borrower of the vehicle; therefore there was nothing to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. ¶28

Nantha Kumar Vs Kesavan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the claimant, who was only a borrower of the insured vehicle and not its registered owner, is entitled to the personal accident coverage for which the insured paid extra premium covering the owner-cum-driver. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Where, by the claimant's own averments, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of an unknown vehicle, the owner of the two-wheeler is not liable to pay any amount unless there is fault on the part of the driver of his vehicle (i.e. the claimant).

¶32

Key takeaways

A claimant who is a borrower of the vehicle from the owner/insured cannot be a tortfeasor as well as claimant/beneficiary; hence the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), CMA No.3669 of 2021 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - dismissed. The claimant, injured on 12.06.2015 at Karaikal when an unknown rider on an 'Appache' motorcycle dashed against his Yamaha Libero (PY-02-D-3155), which he was driving as a borrower and not as registered owner, claimed against the owner (Kesavan) and the insurer (United India Insurance Company Ltd.); the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal dismissed his claim in MCOP No.185 of 2015 by judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019. Held: (i) the personal accident coverage effected by payment of extra premium applies only to the owner-cum-driver and not to a borrower of the vehicle; (ii) where the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle, the owner is not liable to pay any amount unless there is fault on his own driver, and the borrower-claimant cannot be a tortfeasor as well as claimant/beneficiary. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

CMA No.3669 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 05.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

CMA No.3669 of 2021

Nantha Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

Kesavan

¶11

United India Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, having office at No.50, Jeevanandam Street, Karaikal . ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 made in MCOP No.185 of 2015on the file of the District

¶13

Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.D.Bhaskaran for second respondent for first respondent- No appearance

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CMA No.3669 of 2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed, challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal in MCOP No.185 of 2015, dated 31.10.2019, dismissing the claim petition.

¶21

It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was driving his motor vehicle Yamaha Libero bearing registration No.PY-02-D-3155 on 12.06.2015 at 2.30 p.m. at Idumban Chettiar Salai, Karaikal. When the claimant was approaching the junction of Kamaraj Salai, Karaikkal, an unknown person came on a Appache Motorcyle and dashed against the claimant/appellant, as a result of which, he sustained injury. Since the details of the unknown vehicle is not known to the petitioner, he filed the claim petition against the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle, which was driven by him.

¶22

Before Tribunal, the Insurance company filed a counter and

¶23

opposed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant was a Page 2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

CMA No.3669 of 2021

¶26

stranger/ borrower of the vehicle from the owner, which was driven by him at the time of accident and hence, as a borrower, the claimant can be construed only as a third party. It is further stated by the insurance company that the extra premium paid by the owner of the vehicle for personal coverage will not be applicable to the claimant, as he is a third party.

¶27

The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence available on record, dismissed the claim petition and aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal.

¶28

A perusal of Ex.P3 would indicate that the insured paid extra premium, which covers owner cum driver of the vehicle. In the case on hand, the claimant is not the registered owner of the vehicle and he is only a borrower. The very personal accident coverage, based on extra premium is applicable only to the owner cum driver and not for the borrower of the vehicle. Therefore, I do not find anything to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

CMA No.3669 of 2021

¶32

Even according to the case of the claimant, as per his averments in the claim petition, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of unknown vehicle. Therefore, the owner of the two wheeler is not liable to pay any amount, unless there is any fault on the driver of his vehicle (i.e. claimant). Even assuming that there is negligence on the part of the claimant (borrower of vehicle from owner/insured), he can not be a tortfeasor as well as claimant/ beneficiary. Hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition

¶33