Son dies in accident while driving father's car; Delhi High Court says insurance can't be claimed. Here's why

In a significant ruling on motor accident compensation claims, the Delhi High Court has held that the family of a person who dies while driving a borrowed vehicle cannot claim compensation under the vehicle owner's personal accident insurance through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) if the petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

As reported by the Times of India, the court clarified that personal accident cover under a comprehensive motor insurance policy is a contractual benefit and cannot be enforced before the MACT, whose jurisdiction is limited to statutory claims arising from negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Case details

As per the report, a person called Udey Singh died in a road accident while driving his father's Toyota Innova. The vehicle was allegedly hit by a speeding truck that could not be traced. After the collision, the Innova crashed into another vehicle and a wall. Udey Singh was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.


Following the accident, his mother, Simbal Singh, approached the MACT under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation from the insurer of the Innova. She argued that her son should be treated as a "third party" or an occupant entitled to benefits under the vehicle's comprehensive insurance policy, which included personal accident cover.

Why did the High Court reject the claim?

The MACT had dismissed the petition in April 2025, holding that the dispute was contractual in nature and therefore outside its jurisdiction. Challenging that order, the family approached the Delhi High Court.

Justice Anish Dayal upheld the tribunal's decision and explained that claims under Section 166 are based on proving negligence. Since the truck responsible for the accident could not be identified, the only negligence that could be examined was that of Udey Singh, who was driving the vehicle.

The court observed: "Evidently, this being a claim under Section 166 of MV Act, emanating out of a plea of negligence, legal representatives of deceased driver cannot claim that he himself was negligent and, therefore, they be entitled to compensation. This would result in an illogical absurdity and amount to somebody trying to lift themselves by their own bootstraps."

The High Court distinguished between statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act and contractual liability arising from an insurance policy.

It noted that insurance companies offer personal accident cover for owner-drivers under comprehensive or package policies after collecting an additional premium. However, this benefit arises solely from the insurance contract and not from any statutory obligation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

"The claim made under the insurance policy is not a claim arising out of negligence of a party, but merely a claim where the risk of bodily injury or death of owner-driver is covered by the Insurance Company. This takes the claim into a purely contractual arena," the court said.

Borrower cannot be treated as a third party

The court further held that a person driving a borrowed vehicle cannot be regarded as a "third party" for claiming benefits that are specifically meant for the owner-driver under the insurance policy.

Since such claims arise from the terms of the insurance contract, they cannot be adjudicated by the MACT.

Where should such claims be filed?

The High Court clarified that contractual disputes relating to insurance benefits must be pursued before the appropriate legal forum, such as a consumer forum or a civil court, and not before the MACT.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal's earlier order.

What is Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act allows victims of road accidents, or the legal heirs of those killed in accidents, to seek compensation from the person responsible for the accident and their insurer.

However, a claim under this provision requires proof of negligence. The claimant must establish that the accident occurred due to the fault of another person. In this case, since the alleged offending truck remained untraced, the court found that such a claim could not succeed against the insurer of the borrowed vehicle.