LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 28 July 2026

Whether the claim petition can be maintained by the legal heirs of the deceased, who borrowed the vehicle from its owner, for claiming the personal accident cover?

Cholamandalam MS General v. U.Durga
2026:MHC:3113 · CMA.No.3009 of 2025
Coram: Justice N.Anand Venkatesh
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Section III of the policy read with IMT-15 provides personal accident cover for the owner-driver who is the registered owner of the insured vehicle and the insured named in the policy, and the compensation is payable only to the insured named in the policy or his or her legal representatives. A borrower of the vehicle is a third party who cannot step into the shoes of the owner; extending the cover to such a third party would go against the very objective of providing personal accident cover.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166 — Personal accident cover — Owner-cum-driver — Borrower of vehicle — Privity of contract — Maintainability — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166 — Personal accident cover confined to the insured — Held: A combined reading of the terms of the policy and IMT-15 confines personal accident cover to the insured named in the policy or his or her legal representatives, that is, the registered owner-cum-driver of the insured motor vehicle. (¶22, 24) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166 — Borrower a third party — No privity of contract — Held further: A borrower of the vehicle is a third party, and authorisation by the owner to use the vehicle creates no entitlement in his legal representatives to personal accident cover; the Insurance Company has no privity of contract with such a third party. (¶27, 28) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166 — Claim petition not maintainable — Award unsustainable — Held further: Since only the contractual liability applies, a petition under Section 166 cannot be maintained to make such a claim, and an award mulcting that liability on the Insurance Company is unsustainable. Appeal allowed; award set aside. (¶28, 29)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 22The policy in this case has been marked as Ex.R.2. Section III of the policy provides for personal accident cover for specified injuries and death of the owner-cum-driver of the insured motor vehicle and this cover is subject to the following conditions:
Paragraph 24A combined reading of the terms of the policy and IMT-15 makes it clear that it is confined to the personal accident cover of the insured named in the policy or his/her legal representative(s), whose receipt shall be a full discharge in respect of the injury of such person.
Paragraph 25If a personal accident cover, which, by its definition, is confined only to the registered owner of the vehicle or to his/her legal representative(s), bringing in a third party, who is a borrower of a vehicle and directing the payment of personal accident cover to such a third party or his/her legal representative(s) will go against the very objective of providing personal accident cover by the Insurance Company.
Acts & Sections
s.166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s.163A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Rule 3 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Cholamandalam MS General v. U.Durga — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can personal accident cover under a motor policy be claimed by a third party through a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections