The Madras High Court has ruled that a borrower of a vehicle is equivalent to the owner in terms of liability and therefore, cannot claim compensation for an accident. According to the Motor Vehicles Act, when a person borrows a vehicle, they assume the responsibilities and liabilities associated with its ownership, at least in the context of accidents. This means that if the borrower is involved in an accident, they cannot seek compensation as they would be considered the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act. The court’s decision effectively places the borrower in the shoes of the owner, making them responsible for any damages or liabilities arising from the accident, rather than allowing them to claim as a third party might.

The Madras High Court has ruled that a person who borrows a vehicle from its owner cannot claim compensation similar to a third party. This decision was made by Justice R Poornima of the Madurai bench, who referenced a Supreme Court case, Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another. In that case, the court held that a claim petition under Section 163A was not maintainable by a borrower or permissible user of a vehicle against the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

The current case involved an appeal by the New India Assurance Company against an order from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which directed the insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,93,500 to the wife of a deceased man. The claimant’s husband had been driving his brother’s car, which was insured with the company, when it capsized and he sustained fatal injuries.

The insurance company argued that the accident occurred due to the husband’s rash and negligent driving, and that he could not be regarded as a third party since he was the brother of the vehicle’s owner and was driving the vehicle. The company also argued that the tribunal had failed to consider that the deceased was not a paid driver and was therefore not eligible for compensation under the Workman’s Compensation Act.

The court noted that the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner when he borrowed the vehicle, and that compensation could not be claimed. The court allowed the insurance company’s appeal and set aside the order of the MACT, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ramkhiladi case. The court’s decision emphasizes that a person who borrows a vehicle from its owner takes on the same responsibilities and liabilities as the owner, and cannot claim compensation as a third party.

The court’s ruling is significant, as it clarifies the legal position on compensation claims in cases where a person borrows a vehicle from its owner. The decision will likely have implications for similar cases in the future, where the issue of compensation claims by borrowers or permissible users of vehicles is disputed. The case highlights the importance of understanding the legal relationships between vehicle owners, borrowers, and insurers, and the potential consequences of accidents involving borrowed vehicles.