At the Aurangabad Bench, the Bombay High Court on Thursday overturned a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of ₹16.37 lakh, concluding that the injured claimant had “stepped into the shoes of the owner” because he had borrowed the motorcycle involved in the 2015 road mishap. Justice Kishore C. Sant, who had reserved the matter in October, delivered the ruling amid arguments that stretched beyond the usual third-party liability questions.
Background
The case began after Sambhaji Holkar, who suffered 46% permanent disability, approached the Osmanabad MACT claiming compensation. He was riding pillion on a motorcycle driven by a friend, Kailas, when the vehicle supposedly skidded on 22 October 2015.
Read also: Supreme Court signals fresh push for pending 2025 guidelines, adjourns plea by disabled students
But the FIR came more than one and a half months later, lodged not by the rider but by Holkar’s father, based on what he had “heard” from others. This delay, and the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, became a major flashpoint during the appeal.
The Oriental Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal’s 2023 award, insisting that the entire claim was a product of collusion and that Holkar was not a third party but a borrower of the motorcycle - a key distinction in motor accident liability.
Read also: Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh High Court for 'Shocking' Habeas Corpus Bail Order, Sets Aside
Court’s Observations
The hearing saw spirited submissions from both sides. The insurance company maintained that Holkar borrowed the motorcycle and therefore could not claim third-party compensation. “Once he borrowed the vehicle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner,” counsel argued, relying heavily on Supreme Court precedents such as Ramkhiladi and Ningamma.
Holkar’s counsel pushed back, saying a stray admission made by the claimant’s father couldn’t be treated as conclusive proof. He insisted the bike was driven by its owner’s friend and that Holkar was a genuine pillion rider.
However, Justice Sant did not accept that line. The court paid close attention to the father’s deposition - including his own statement that the claimant had taken the motorcycle to visit his in-laws. The judge noted the inconsistency between the story in court and the FIR, adding that the failure to examine the actual rider, Kailas Gore, was a serious gap.
“The bench observed, ‘This admission cannot be brushed aside as a stray statement. The evidence indicates the vehicle was borrowed by the claimant himself,’” the order notes pointedly.
Another factor influencing the court was the insurance policy itself. The judge noted that the policy did not include any personal accident cover for the owner-cum-driver, meaning even if Holkar was considered in that category, he was not insured.
The Court also noted that nothing prevented the claimant from examining the one person who actually witnessed the accident - the motorcycle rider. “Though it was possible to bring best possible evidence on record, it is not brought,” the court remarked.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the facts, evidence, delays, and policy terms, the Court held that Holkar was not a third party under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore could not claim compensation from the insurer.
Justice Sant allowed the appeal and quashed the MACT’s award of ₹16,37,000. As a procedural formality, the court also permitted the insurance company to withdraw the amount it had earlier deposited after the mandatory six-week period.
The judgment ends at that decisive point - the MACT award stands set aside, and all pending applications linked to the appeal stand disposed of.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sambhaji Holkar & Anr. - MACT Award Set Aside
Original Case: MACP No. 164 of 2016, Osmanabad MACT
Court: Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
Judge: Justice Kishore C. Sant
Case Type: First Appeal (FA No. 4436 of 2023)
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
