The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday overturned an award of compensation granted to the widow of a driver who died in a road accident. Justice R. Poornima ruled that since the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and had borrowed the vehicle from his brother, he effectively “stepped into the shoes of the owner” and was not entitled to be treated as a third party under motor accident claim laws.
Background
The case dates back to February 2009, when Rajasekar alias Chandrasekar, aged 36, was driving a Toyota Qualis on the Sankarankoil–Kovilpatti Main Road. The vehicle capsized, leaving him fatally injured. His wife, Annalakshmi, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Tirunelveli seeking ₹3,93,500 as compensation. She argued that her husband was the sole breadwinner, earning about ₹3,000 per month, and his sudden death left the family destitute.
The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, awarded her the full claim amount with 8% interest, directing New India Assurance Company to deposit the compensation.
Court’s Observations
The insurance company challenged the award, contending that the deceased himself drove negligently, and since the car belonged to his brother, he was not a “third party” under law. Their lawyer stressed that “a tort-feasor cannot claim compensation for his own negligence.”
Justice Poornima agreed with this position. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramkhiladi vs. United India Insurance (2020), she said that a borrower or permissive user of a vehicle is treated as the owner for liability purposes.
“When a person borrows a vehicle and drives it, he steps into the shoes of the owner. In such circumstances, he cannot turn around and claim compensation from the insurer,” the judge noted.
The FIR and witness evidence also weighed against the claimant. The police records showed that the deceased himself drove rashly, leading to the crash. Even during cross-examination, the widow admitted that her husband was not a paid driver and had borrowed the car from his brother.
Decision
Concluding that the Tribunal had erred in awarding damages without properly assessing negligence, the High Court set aside the compensation order. “The deceased was solely responsible for the accident and hence, not entitled to any claim,” Justice Poornima observed while dismissing the petition.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by New India Assurance and directed that the insurer can withdraw the deposited sum, if any, by filing an appropriate application. No costs were imposed.
Case: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Annalakshmi & Anr.
Case No.: CMA (MD) No. 1866 of 2013
Date of Judgment: 24 September 2025
