This appeal challenged the dismissal of motor accident claims regarding the death of a driver and a minor child. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal and High Court decisions that compensation required established negligence absent under Section 166 and that Section 163A was not applicable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025 INSC 1125
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. 8155-8156 of 2023
Meena Jain & Anr.
….Appellant(s)
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
....Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal1 for compensation due on the death of a minor child and her father. The claimants were the mother and
sibling, of the minor child, who along with the mother-in-law made another application for compensation for the death of the father of the deceased child.
2. The claimants along with the deceased were travelling in
a car from Pali to Jodhpur when it suddenly collided with a Neem tree. The driver of the vehicle, who was the bread winner of the family died on the spot, and his minor child
succumbed to the injuries, in the hospital. The claimants also
1 for short, ‘the Tribunal’
Page 1 of 4
Civil Appeal Nos. 8155-8156 of 2023
suffered injuries. The claim petitions stood dismissed, finding the same to be not maintainable, especially when there was no negligence proved.
3. The deceased driver of the vehicle had borrowed the vehicle from his friend and hence, he steps into the shoes of the owner. The Tribunal found that only to bring in the aspect of negligence, at the evidence stage, a new story was spoken, of a truck having come through the wrong side negligently and rashly, thus forcing the driver to swerve the car, which collided with a Neem tree. The Tribunal disbelieved the oral evidence since it was not supported by the pleadings in the application. The application merely stated that the car hit a
Neem tree and caused injuries to the occupants, to which injuries one passenger and the driver succumbed. Even if the new story hatched for the first time before the Tribunal is believed, it can only lead to the truck driver being found negligent, who along with the owner and the insurer of the vehicle were not parties before the Tribunal. The High Court
after considering a number of decisions agreed with the
Tribunal.
Page 2 of 4
Civil Appeal Nos. 8155-8156 of 2023
4. Admittedly, under Section 166 of the Indian Motor
Vehicles Act, 19882 , a claim for compensation for death or injury can be pursued only if there is established negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Obviously,
even if the driver of the subject vehicle in the above case is found to be negligent, there can be no compensation for his death, since he is the tort-feasor. The compensation with respect to the child could have been considered which also fails due to absence of any pleading of negligence.
5. The unfortunate accident occurred on 05.09.1993 and on
that date Section 163A of the MV Act was not available in the statute, disentitling even the no fault liability claim under the MV Act. The provision under Section 163A was brought into the MV Act only with effect from 19.11.1994.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Balakrishnan and Anr.3 . That was a case in which the Managing Director was travelling in a company owned vehicle which vehicle was also validly insured. It was
2 The MV Act
3 (2013) 1 SCC 731
Page 3 of 4
Civil Appeal Nos. 8155-8156 of 2023
held that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in
case of “comprehensive/package policy” but not in the case of an “Act policy”. A remand was made to the Tribunal to scrutinise the policy in the proper perspective and if necessary, take additional evidence as to the nature of the policy. The dictum does not at all help the appellants herein.
7. We are unable to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court, and we dismiss the appeals.
8. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
...……….……………………….. J.
New Delhi; August 22, 2025.
Page 4 of 4
Civil Appeal Nos. 8155-8156 of 2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal correctly dismissed the claims for death of the deceased driver and the minor child due to absence of negligence.
Whether Section 163A of the MV Act applies to an accident dated 05.09.1993.
Whether the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Balakrishnan and Anr. applies to the present facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Balakrishnan and Anr.Distinguished¶6
(2013) 1 SCC 731 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Meena Jain & Anr.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
