The Supreme Court in the case Sujata Singh And Anr. versus. The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited And Anr and G. Santhi & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr observed and has directed the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India for considering that weather the claims by the family members, friends, or such persons other than the registered owner driving or riding borrowed vehicles, could be the beneficiaries of the personal accident covers, wherein the accidents could not be attributed to other ‘offending’ vehicles or the drivers’ own negligence, thus but also the other intervening circumstances.
The division bench comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli in the case observed while hearing a batch of appeals which are being preferred by such a class of people who are being excluded from receiving compensation.
The court in its interim order stated that in these kind of matters, appropriate consideration is required to be made by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India which includes such claims since at present, they are not being considered as an occupant of the vehicle. At this stage, the court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, but prima facie this court is of the view that such coverage should be considered firstly by the IRDAI by taking into consideration the existing tariff which is indicated to also include such cases for reimbursement.
The Supreme Court while passing the said directions stated:
Firstly, it has been stated that the accidents are said to have occurred while either with close friends or the family members was driving or riding the borrowed vehicle and with no involvement of another ‘offending’ vehicle. As a result of which the insurance company, while declining to reimburse the compensation, seek to reply on the India Motor Tariff, more particularly, Section III which relates to personal accident cover for owners-drivers.
Therefore, as per the document the owner-driver of a vehicle would be compensated for the bodily injury which is being sustained by them, or if the said accident results in their death, wherein providing that the person driving the vehicle was its registered owner. Secondly, it has been held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the person driving or riding a borrowed vehicle ‘steps into the shoes’ of the owner and therefore, the Section III which relates to personal cover for the owner-driver would apply. In the present case, the said claims were not strictly considered as falling under claims for compensation. The bench noted that this was because the accident was not being caused due to the negligence of the person driving or riding the vehicle, but because of owing to other causes. However, in one of the case a Nilgai from the wild crossed the road and the accident had occurred.
The Court while considering the facts directed the regulatory authority for considering whether such claims could be included within personal accident cover.
The bench in its order stated that, this court request the counsel, Mr Abhishek Gola, appearing for the insurance company as well as for the IRDAI to bring these aspects to the notice of the concerned authorities for taking a decision in the matters and inform this Court.
