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 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.

by | Oct 31, 2025 | Insurance, New India Assurance, United India Insurance

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....
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.

CRED has expanded its insurance network by partnering with Bajaj Allianz, Tata AIG, and United India on its garage platform.

by | Oct 29, 2025 | Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance, ICICI Lombard, Insurance, Kotak Life, Tata AIA, United India Insurance

CRED, a fintech company, has expanded its motor insurance offerings on its CRED Garage platform by partnering with three new insurance providers: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, Tata AIG, and United India Insurance. This brings the total number of insurance providers...
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 Supreme Court has stayed an order from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed an insurer to pay Rs. 82.8 lakh to the Rajasthan Royals, a cricket team that competes in the Indian Premier League (IPL).

by | Oct 28, 2025 | Insurance, United India Insurance

The Supreme Court of India has stayed an order issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed United India Insurance to pay ₹82.8 lakh to Royal Multisport Pvt Ltd, the parent company of the Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise...
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 Supreme Court has stayed an order from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed an insurer to compensate the Rajasthan Royals for an injury sustained by cricketer Sreesanth.

by | Oct 27, 2025 | Insurance, United India Insurance

The Supreme Court has stayed an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed United India Insurance Company to pay over Rs. 82 lakhs to the owner of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team, Rajasthan Royals. The payment was in...