Supreme Court: No Insurance Compensation If Driver Caused the Accident

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that insurance companies are not responsible for paying compensation to the family of a person who caused a road accident due to his own rash and negligent driving.

The judgment came in the case of G Nagarathna & Others vs. G Manjunatha & Another, involving a fatal accident that took place in Karnataka back in 2014.

What Was the Case About?

The case was filed by the wife, son, and parents of NS Ravisha, who died in a car crash on June 18, 2014. Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea car from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town, with his family members as passengers.

According to the police investigation, Ravisha was speeding, violated traffic rules, and lost control of the vehicle near Mylanahalli gate, leading to a serious accident in which he died due to head injuries.

The family filed a claim of ₹80 lakh against United India Insurance Company, seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

What Did the Courts Say?

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) rejected the family's claim. It said that Ravisha himself had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving, making him a “self-tortfeasor”—a legal term for someone who causes harm to themselves due to their own wrongdoing.

The Tribunal ruled that in such cases, the legal heirs of the person who caused the accident cannot seek compensation from the insurance company, since the policy only covers third-party liability (damage or injury caused to others, not the driver himself).

The Family's Appeal:

Ravisha’s family appealed to the Karnataka High Court, saying that the accident happened because of a tyre burst, not because of his driving. However, the High Court found that this claim was not part of their original case and was added later as an afterthought.

The Court also looked at the police report and the vehicle inspection, which clearly stated that the tyre burst was a result of the accident, not the cause.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and concluded that since Ravisha was driving the borrowed vehicle, he "stepped into the shoes of the owner". So, he was not considered a third party under the insurance policy.

Supreme Court Upholds the Ruling:

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan in the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court. They said there was no reason to interfere with the earlier ruling and dismissed the family’s appeal.

The Court reaffirmed that when an accident is caused by the negligence of the driver, and the driver himself dies, his family cannot claim insurance compensation, as the policy only protects third parties—not the person responsible for the accident.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

• Self-tortfeasors (those who cause accidents by their own fault) cannot claim compensation from their insurance.

• Insurance policies under the Motor Vehicles Act generally cover third-party claims, not the driver’s own injury or death if they are at fault.

• Courts rely heavily on evidence such as police reports and vehicle inspections in determining fault.

• Afterthought arguments—claims added later without proper evidence—are unlikely to be accepted.

  
  

This ruling is an important reminder of the limits of insurance coverage and highlights the importance of safe driving. It also clarifies a crucial point in motor accident laws—compensation is not guaranteed if the accident is caused by the insured person’s own mistake.