[Motor Accident cases] Insured vehicle's borrower not entitled to compensation: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently held that in motor accident cases, a claimant borrowing the vehicle of an insured person cannot be a third party for insurance reliefs under a personal accident cover [National Insurance Co Ltd vs Md Atikul Islam and anr]..Justice Malasri Nandi observed that a personal accident cover is designed to give benefits to the insured only and not a borrower."The benefits of the Insurance policy is restricted to the personal insurance cover to the owner and the personal accident cover is a contract between the insured and the insurer and only designed to give the benefit to the insured and not to the borrower," the Court ruled. The single-judge was hearing an appeal against a 2010 order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) that awarded the present respondent ₹1,61,000 as compensation for being injured as part of an accident involving an insured bike they had borrowed..The counsel for the insurance company argued that the claimant cannot be termed a third party for the purpose of awarding the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that it is the liability of the owner to indemnify the claimant in such matters.The Court noted that since the premium paid for the motor insurance was towards personal accident claims, "the insurance company cannot be burdened with the liability of compensation of the injured claimant who borrowed the vehicle from the registered owner."Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi and others, Justice Nandi held that in the present case the respondents only stepped into the shoes of the insured owner of the motorbike. "The respondent/claimant is not covered under the MV Act as the injured/claimant stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle in question," the Court said. The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal stating that the respondents were not entitled to the compensation awarded, and set aside the same..Advocate R Goswami appeared for the appellants while advocate N Debnath represented the respondents.[Read order]