No insurance coverage for legal heirs if accident due to rash driving of deceased: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that in road accident cases, insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation to legal heirs of a deceased person who caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving [G Nagarathna & Ors. vs. G Manjunatha & Anr.]

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan dismissed the claim filed by the wife, son, and parents of one NS Ravisha, who died in a car crash in Karnataka in 2014.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s November 2024 ruling, which had rejected the family’s compensation claim of ₹80 lakh against United India Insurance Company.

The High Court had ruled that since the accident was caused solely due to Ravisha’s own fault, the claim could not be sustained under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The fatal accident occurred on June 18, 2014, when Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea car from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town, accompanied by his father, sister and her children.

According to the police, Ravisha was speeding, violated traffic rules and lost control of the vehicle near Mylanahalli gate. The car toppled, resulting in his death from head injuries.

A first information report (FIR) was registered under Sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 337 (causing hurt to any person by doing an act that endangers human life or personal safety through rashness or negligence), and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. A chargesheet was consequently filed blaming Ravisha for the incident.

Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ravisha’s family alleged that a tyre burst had caused the accident. However, the Tribunal dismissed their claim, holding that the deceased was a self-tortfeasor and that the legal heirs of a person who causes an accident cannot claim compensation for his death.

On appeal, the High Court found that the family’s claim about a tyre burst was an afterthought and contrary to their original pleadings. The Court noted that while the family later tried to amend their petition to include the tyre burst theory, their application had already been dismissed by the MACT and was never challenged.

The High Court also relied on the police records and motor vehicle inspection report, which indicated that the tyre had burst due to the impact of the accident, not before it.

It concluded that Ravisha had borrowed the car from its owner and, in doing so, stepped into the shoes of the owner. Therefore, as a tortfeasor himself, his family was not entitled to claim compensation under the insurance policy, which only indemnifies against third-party liability.

The Supreme Court upheld this view taken by the High Court and rejected the family's claim.

[Read Order]