25 July 2025 Motor Accident >> Family Law  

In this case, the family of a man who died in a car accident while driving his brother's car sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased was driving the vehicle when a tire burst, causing the car to topple over, and he succumbed to a head injury. The owner of the car (the deceased's brother) and his family were also in the car at the time and were injured. The owner had a comprehensive insurance policy that included a personal accident cover.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the deceased's family over Rs. 25 lakh in compensation. The insurance company appealed, arguing that the driver was negligent and that, under the law, the insurer is not liable for the owner or a person acting as the owner (the driver). The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 2 lakh, finding that while the comprehensive policy had an additional premium for a personal accident cover, it limited the liability for the owner/driver's death to that amount.

The Supreme Court, however, overturned the High Court's decision and restored the Tribunal's original award. The court noted that the insurance company had not produced the policy document or its written statement to prove that it had raised the argument of limited liability before the Tribunal or the High Court. The memorandum of appeal to the High Court also did not contain this specific ground. The court emphasized that a party cannot introduce a new argument without proper pleadings and evidence. Since the insurance company failed to prove that the personal accident cover had a limited liability clause that it had properly raised, the original award was upheld. The court also clarified that this was not a matter of statutory third-party liability but a contractual liability arising from the personal accident cover in the comprehensive policy.

  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988