ADVOCATETANMOY LAW LIBRARY

Research & Library Database

Home ยป Sarvarthapedia ยป Law ยป Whether owner of vehicle would get benefit of insurance if meet with accidental death while driving illegally

Whether owner of vehicle would get benefit of insurance if meet with accidental death while driving illegally

Supreme court of india
It is an admitted position that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (Smt)ย and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 263, was considering a similar case where the ownerย himself was driving the vehicle which due to his negligence dashed with a treeย on the roadside as a result of which he died. The Court held that the claimย petition filed by his LRs was not maintainable. It was held thus:-

“10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle.ย For the reasons stated in the claim petition orย otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for theย accident. The accident did not involve motorย vehicle other than the one which he was driving.ย The question which arises for consideration is thatย the deceased himself being negligent, the claimย petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehiclesย Act, 1988 would be maintainable.

11. Liability of the insurer Company is to theย extent of indemnification of the insured against theย respondent or an injured person, a third person orย in respect of damages of property. Thus, if theย insured cannot be fastened with any liability underย the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, theย question of the insurer being liable to indemnifyย the insured, therefore, does not arise”.

It is an admitted position that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. โ€ฆ..ย  VERSUS ASHALATA BHOWMIK AND ORS. SCย CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9100 OF 2018]