Wife Riding as Pillion Remains Third Party, Insurer Must Pay: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation for the death of a pillion rider merely because she was the wife of the vehicle owner, even when both the owner and his wife died in the same motor accident.

The Court clarified that unless a person is the insured or has legally stepped into the shoes of the insured, they would continue to be treated as a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi while allowing an appeal filed by the son and daughter of a deceased couple, challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award which, despite quantifying compensation, had denied payment by fastening no liability on the insurer.

The case arose from a tragic accident that occurred on March 4, 2019, when Shivnarayan was riding his motorcycle with his wife Ratanbai as a pillion rider. Due to rash and negligent driving, the motorcycle lost balance, causing Ratanbai to fall and suffer grievous injuries. She died while being taken to the hospital. Shivnarayan, who was also seriously injured, succumbed to his injuries later during treatment. The motorcycle was duly insured with IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Their children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of their mother Ratanbai alone and did not raise any claim for the death of their father, who was the owner and rider of the vehicle. The Claims Tribunal held that although the accident was proved and compensation of ₹10.79 lakh was rightly assessed, the insurer was not liable to pay as Ratanbai, being the wife of the owner, could not be treated as a third party. It reasoned that upon the death of the owner, the wife would step into his shoes as the owner of the vehicle and, consequently, her heirs would also be owners, disentitling them from claiming compensation from the insurer.

Appearing for the appellants, Advocate Abhishek Gilke argued that the Tribunal had committed a grave error in law by mechanically treating Ratanbai as the legal representative of the owner. It was contended that Ratanbai died before her husband and therefore, at the time of her death, the owner of the vehicle was still alive. As such, she could not be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the insured and was clearly a third party. Reliance was placed on several High Court judgments holding that relationship with the owner does not by itself negate third-party status.

Opposing the appeal, Advocates Sudarshan Pandit and Rajesh Pandit, appearing for the insurer, contended that the claim was not maintainable as the owner was not impleaded and that the claimants had effectively become owners of the vehicle upon the death of their parents. They further relied on Supreme Court precedents to argue that the insurer could not be made liable in the absence of the insured on record.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the Tribunal had misapplied the law. The Court noted that under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ownership of a vehicle does not automatically transfer upon death and requires a statutory process. It further relied on Section 155 of the Act to hold that the death of the insured does not extinguish the cause of action against the insurer.

Justice Dwivedi observed that the factual sequence of deaths was crucial in the present case. Since Ratanbai died before Shivnarayan, she could not have become the owner or legal representative of the insured at any point in time. Consequently, she remained a third party, and the insurer’s liability to indemnify subsisted. The Court also held that even the absence of the owner as a party would not absolve the insurer, particularly in cases where the cause of action survives by operation of law.

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the insurer, holding that they arose from materially different factual contexts and were not applicable to claims under Section 166 of the Act where negligence was established.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court directed the insurance company to pay the compensation as already quantified by the Claims Tribunal along with applicable interest, modifying the impugned award to that extent.

Case Title: Ramdayal Carpenter and Others v. IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Date of Judgment: January 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi