Supreme Court.
No Insurance for Legal Heirs if Driver Caused Accident by Rash Driving: Supreme Court: New Delhi, India – July 5, 2025 – In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of motor vehicle insurance liability, the Supreme Court of India has held that insurance companies are not obligated to pay compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased person if the accident was solely caused by the deceased’s own rash and negligent driving. This decision reinforces the principle that a “self-tortfeasor” cannot claim indemnification through their own insurance for their own fault.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan dismissed a claim filed by the wife, son, and parents of one N.S. Ravisha, who tragically died in a car crash in Karnataka in 2014. The Court found no reason to overturn the Karnataka High Court’s November 2024 ruling, which had rejected the family’s compensation claim of ₹80 lakh against United India Insurance Company.
The Karnataka High Court had previously concluded that since the accident was caused solely due to Ravisha’s own fault, the claim could not be sustained under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
READ: Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud Calls for Tax Overhaul, Urges Ban on Retrospective Amendments
The Fatal Accident and Police Findings
The incident occurred on June 18, 2014, when Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea car from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town, accompanied by his father, sister, and her children. Police investigations revealed that Ravisha was speeding, violated traffic rules, and subsequently lost control of the vehicle near Mylanahalli gate. The car toppled, leading to his death from severe head injuries.
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. A chargesheet was later filed, explicitly blaming Ravisha for the fatal incident.
Tribunal and High Court Rulings Upheld
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ravisha’s family initially contended that a tyre burst had caused the accident. However, the Tribunal dismissed their claim, asserting that the deceased was a self-tortfeasor and that the legal heirs of a person who causes an accident cannot claim compensation for his death.
On appeal, the Karnataka High Court scrutinized the family’s claim regarding the tyre burst, finding it to be an afterthought and inconsistent with their original pleadings. The High Court noted that while the family later attempted to amend their petition to include the tyre burst theory, their application had been dismissed by the MACT and was never challenged. The High Court also relied on police records and the motor vehicle inspection report, which clearly indicated that the tyre had burst due to the impact of the accident, rather than being a pre-existing condition that caused the crash.
READ: Will Can Be Proved Even If Attesting Witness Is Dead: Kerala High Court
The High Court concluded that Ravisha, having borrowed the car from its owner, effectively stepped into the owner’s shoes. Therefore, as the tortfeasor himself, his family was not entitled to claim compensation under the insurance policy, which is designed to indemnify against third-party liability, not self-inflicted harm.
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in the case of G Nagarathna & Ors. vs. G Manjunatha & Anr., upheld this view taken by the Karnataka High Court, thereby rejecting the family’s claim for compensation. This ruling sets a clear precedent, emphasizing personal responsibility in road accidents and the limits of insurance coverage in cases of self-negligence.
READ: Telangana HC Cancels Free Land Allotment for Hyderabad Arbitration Centre
