`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 09

th

January 2026

Pronounced on : 29

th

January 2026

Uploaded on : 29

th

January 2026

+ MAC.APP. 13/2026 & CM APPL. 1041/2026 (stay)

UNITED INDIA INSURACE CO LTD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus

DHIRAJ TRAHAN .....Respondent

Through:

+ MAC.APP. 14/2026 & CM APPL. 1044/2026 (stay)

UNITED INDIA INSURACE CO LTD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus

GEETA TREHAN .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) by the Insurance Company challenging

impugned award dated 08

th

October 2025 passed by Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal [hereinafter, ‘Tribunal’], North West, Rohini Courts,

Delhi in MACT Case no. 449556/2016 titled as ‘Dhiraj Trehan v.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr’ and in MACT Case No.

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 2 of 16

450066/2016 titled as ‘Geeta Trehan v United India Insurance Co. Ltd

& Anr’.

2. Appellant/United India Insurance Company (‘Insurance

Company’) has preferred this challenge essentially on the grounds that

both Dhiraj Trehan and Geeta Trehan (hereinafter, “claimants”) who

were occupants of the car driven by Kamal Trehan, father of Dhiraj

Trehan and husband of Geeta Trehan.

3. The only contention raised by Insurance Company was that

compensation could not be awarded to claimants, since after the death

Kamal Trehan/driver and owner of the vehicle, claimants being legal

heirs of the deceased became co-owners of the vehicle and stepped into

the shoes of Kamal Trehan, who was the insured.

The Accident

4. On 05

th

October 2013, at about 05:40 A.M., Geeta Trehan, wife

of late Kamla Trehan and Dhiraj Trehan, son of late Kamal Trehan,

along with other co-passengers, Basanti, Sushila, Deepika and Kaushalya

Devi were travelling in a Maruti Van, bearing registration no. DL-5CC-

0255 (hereinafter, “offending vehicle”) going to Village Jatkhor, Delhi

to attend a Sangat.

5. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven at a

high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by Kamal Trehan/driver

and when they reached in front of Village Ladpur, offending vehicle

collied against divider of the road and as a result of the impact; claimants

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 3 of 16

sustained grievous injuries. Kamal Trehan/Driver sustained fatal injuries

and was declared brought dead.

6. Detailed Accident Report (‘DAR’) was registered and the

offending vehicle was found to be insured with appellant/Insurance

Company.

Impugned Award

7. The two claim petitions were decided by a common order. Dhiraj

Trehan was examined as PW-1, Geeta Trehan was examined as PW-2,

Rajeev, Technician, Medical Record Department from Primus Super

Speciality Hospital, Chanakyapuri was examined as PW-3, Sapna,

Medical Record Technician from Saroj Super Speciality Hospital,

Madhuban Chowk, Delhi was examined as PW-4, Dr. Adarsh Kishore

Singh, Senior Orthopaedic, BSA Hospital was examined as PW-5.

8. On appreciation of evidence adduced by parties, Tribunal came to

the conclusion that in view of unrebutted testimonies of PW-1 and PW-

2, corroborated by criminal case record, Kamal Trehan/driver of

offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident due to the

rash and negligent driving in which the claimants sustained grievous

injuries.

9. Compensation was awarded by Tribunal to Geeta Trehan, in the

following manner:

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 4 of 16

10. Compensation was awarded by Tribunal to Dhiraj Trehan, in the

following manner:

11. Liability was imposed on the Insurance Company, as it was not

their case that any of the terms and conditions of insurance policy had

been breached or violated by the insured, namely, deceased driver.

Submissions on behalf of Appellant

12. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for appellant/Insurance

Company has raised a novel argument wherein he contended that, since

the father/husband of claimants viz. late Kamal Trehan died in the

accident due to his own negligence and him being the insured, the

claimants i.e. Dhiraj Trehan and Geeta Trehan being legal heirs of

deceased stepped into the shoes of owner/insured and therefore, could

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 5 of 16

not claim compensation from insurer/Insurance Company, since the

claimants could not be treated as third parties.

13. He fairly admitted that this argument had not been raised before

the Tribunal and he had chosen to raise this new argument before the

Appellate Court on behalf of the Insurance Company.

14. Essentially, counsel for appellant stated that claimant and payer

i.e. Dhiraj Trehan and Geeta Trehan, (as legal heirs of deceased) could

not be the same person. Reliance was placed on Section 149 of MV Act

which provides that, “duty of insurers to satisfy the judgments and

awards against persons insured in respect of third party.”

15. He contended that the insurance company has no direct liability,

but only indemnifies the owner insured and the owner could not claim

compensation from himself.

16. He stated that therefore, the insurance company is not liable under

its third-party liability to cover the owner of insured vehicle, which post

the death of Kamal Trehan would effectively be the claimants. He relied

on New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors.

(2009) 2 SCC 417, where it was stated that the insurance company was

not liable to indemnify the owner of vehicle being driven by his

deceased son, who did not qualify as a third party.

17. He also relied on New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Rachaiah

2025:KHC:26804 where a claim filed under Section 163A of MV Act

and compensation was initially awarded having proved no fault labiality,

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 6 of 16

however, on appeal, the same had been denied by the High Court of

Karnataka on the basis that the rider of insured vehicle met with an

accident due to his own negligence.

18. Further reliance was placed on Oriental Insurance Company v.

Rajni Devi and Ors (2008) 5 SCC 736, where the Supreme Court held

that the liability under Section 163A of MV Act is on the owner of

vehicle and claimant being legal heirs of deceased owner could not have

maintained a claim petition in terms of Section 163A of MV Act, as they

could not also be recipients.

Analysis

19. It is an admitted position by insurance company that the offending

vehicle was insured at that relevant time i.e. on 5

th

October 2013 with a

policy valid from 20

th

April 2013 till 19

th

April 2014 in the name of Mr.

Kamal Trehan. Insurance Company gave a legal offer of Rs. 46,000/- for

each of the claimants i.e. Dhiraj Trehan and Geeta Trehan.

20. Claim petitions were filed on behalf of Dhiraj Trehan and Geeta

Trehan claiming compensation as a result of an accident caused by

insured offending vehicle basis the negligence of driver and owner,

considering that they were occupants of the car and would be covered

under the statutory third-party liability under Section 149 of MV Act.

21. In this regard, reference may be made to Yashpal Luthra v

United India Insurance. Co. Ltd & Anr. 2009:DHC:5275. The issue

before Single Judge of this Court was, whether under a

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 7 of 16

comprehensive/package policy, insurance company was liable to

compensate for death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the

occupants in a private car.

22. Court noted that terms and conditions of insurance policy were

regulated by Tariff Advisory Committee (‘TAC’) under the Insurance

Act, 1938 till 31

st

December 2006 and, thereafter, by Insurance

Regulatory and Development Authority (‘IRDA’) under the Insurance

Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999.

23. TAC issued a circular dated 18

th

March 1978 to all Insurance

Companies to cover the occupants in a private car under a

comprehensive policy. On 2

nd

June 1986, TAC directed all Insurance

Companies to cover pillion riders on a two-wheeler under the

comprehensive policy. Despite this, the Insurance Company denied their

liability and pleas were repeatedly being raised on this issue in Courts all

over the country.

24. The Court noted that, a meeting of CEOs of all Insurance

Companies was convened under the auspices of IRDA on 26

th

November

2009 and this meeting was attended by CEOs of all 17 Insurance

Companies including, United India Insurance Company Limited

(appellant/insurance company herein). The Court noted that “after

deliberations, all insurance companies admitted their liability in respect

of occupants in a private car and a pillion rider on a two-wheeler under

the comprehensive /package policy”.

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 8 of 16

25. Insurance Companies further agreed to withdraw all appeals filed

by them before various High Courts raising this plea, and also to concede

the liability in respect of appeals filed by claimants before the High

Courts on the above aspect.

26. On 03

rd

December 2009, IRDA issued a circular to all Insurance

Companies stating that, basis the unanimous decision taken by

representatives of general insurance companies to comply with the

circular issued by IRDA on 16

th

November 2009 restating the position

relating to liability, in respect of occupants in a private car and pillion

rider on a two-wheeler, under the comprehensive/package policies.

27. This Court in its order dated 26

th

November 2009, therefore noted

the position as it emerged, as under:

“27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the

comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers

a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a

private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle

is covered under a comprehensive / package policy,

there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to

go into the question whether the Insurance Company is

liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion

rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private

car. In fact, in view of the TAC’s directives and those

of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and

ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was

done in the present case.

……

30. It is also hoped that large number of pending cases

all over the country shall come to an end, and the

claimants who have been denied compensation on this

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 9 of 16

ground, shall ultimately get the compensation

legitimately due to them.”

(emphasis added)

28. This Court having categorically, clearly and extensively clarified

the position in Yashpal Luthra (supra), appellant/Insurance Company

ought to have been better advised so as to not prefer this appeal.

29. It is quite clear that this not a case where legal heirs of deceased

owner of offending vehicle are claiming compensation, it is a case where

occupants injured in the offending vehicle are claiming compensation.

30. As stated above in Yashpal Luthra (supra) Insurance Companies

are obliged to cover the risk of death/injury to occupants in the car.

Therefore, claims made by occupants of the car i.e. Dhiraj Trehan and

Geeta Trehan cannot be set aside, ignored or rendered untenable.

31. This decision was further approved by the Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan (2013) 1 SCC 731, which

noted that a comprehensive/package policy would cover the liability of

an insurer towards the occupants in a car. Relevant observations made by

the Court are extracted as under:

“24….Before the High Court, the competent authority

of IRDA had stated that on 2-6-1986, the Tariff

Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the

insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a

scooter/motorcycle under the “comprehensive policy”

and the said position continues to be in vogue till date.

It had also admitted that the “comprehensive policy” is

presently called a “package policy”. It is the admitted

position, as the decision would show, the earlier

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 10 of 16

Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 continue to

be valid and effective and all insurance companies are

bound to pay the compensation in respect of the

liability towards an occupant in a car under the

“comprehensive/package policy” irrespective of the

terms and conditions contained in the policy. The

competent authority of IRDA was also examined before

the High Court who stated that the Circulars dated 18-

3-1978 and 2-6-1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee

were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective

from 1-7-2002 and they continue to be operative and

binding on the insurance companies. Because of the

aforesaid factual position, the Circulars dated 16-11-

2009 and 3-12-2009, that have been reproduced

hereinabove, were issued.”

(emphasis added)

32. From the insurance policy, which forms part of the record of

appeal, it is quite clear that it is a ‘Private Car Package Policy’ and does

not possess any limitations relating to occupants of the car. Clearly, the

terms of insurance policy are in line with what had been issued as an

instruction and directed by IRDA as noted above and therefore, claim

made by counsel for appellant/Insurance Company would not survive.

33. For the sake of completeness, it will be important to deal with the

decisions relied upon by counsel for appellant/Insurance Company is

absolutely untenable.

34. In Rajini Devi (supra), claim was made for compensation of death

of one, Janak Raj who was riding on a motorcycle with one, Sukhdev

Raj. It was not known as to who was actually driving the said vehicle.

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 11 of 16

Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that owner of the

vehicle deposited an extra amount of Rs.50/- covering his personal

insurance, but the same could not cover the case of a pillion rider, since,

in any event, owner of vehicle was not a third party within the meaning

of Section 147 of MV Act. Tribunal therein had noted that as per the

First Information Report (FIR), it was not clear as to who was driving

the motorcycle, but proceeded to determine the issue under Section

163(A) of MV Act holding Janak Raj as the tort-feasor.

35. Tribunal held that if deceased was the tort-feasor, question of

reimbursement of amount of compensation would not arise. The

Supreme Court then, held that it was a well settled principle of law in

case where a third party is involved, liability of Insurance Company

would be unlimited. However, in cases where compensation is claimed

for death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract

of insurance being governed by a contract, claim made to Insurance

Company would depend on the terms thereof.

36. It was held that Section 163A of MV Act would not have any

application where owner of the motor vehicle was involved himself. The

Apex Court assessed Section 163A of MV Act carefully and since,

liability under the said provision was on owner of the vehicle, claim on

behalf of owner of the vehicle could not be entertained.

37. In Sadanand Mukhi (supra), the issue concerned owner of a

motorcycle, who had insured it with the Insurance Company. As per the

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 12 of 16

factual matrix, son of the insured met with an accident and passed away,

while driving the motorcycle because of a stray dog coming in front of

the motorcycle.

38. Insurance Company raised an issue that owing to the relationship

between deceased and owner of the motor vehicle being that of father

and son, the claimant was not a third party. An issue in that regard was

framed as to, whether the insurer of vehicle is liable to indemnify insured

owner of the vehicle. Supreme Court analysed Section 146 and 147 of

MV Act and stated that the respective provisions provide for two kinds

of insurance, being statutory and contractual in nature.

39. While the Insurance Company is bound to compensate owner or

driver of the vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result

of the accident; however, in cases involving owner of the vehicle, an

additional premium is required to be paid for covering the life and

property.

40. Amount of premium required to be paid is governed by the

Insurance Act,1939. By referring to various decisions covering different

categories of the claim, Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between

statutory liability and contractual liability and held that the Insurance

Company was not liable to compensate the owner of insured vehicle.

41. In Rachaiah (supra), the case involved claim petition filed by

legal heirs of deceased- Somasekhara @ Sony, who had borrowed the

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 13 of 16

vehicle from the owner and while riding motorcycle, he fell down and

sustained grievous head injuries, ultimately, succumbing to his death

42. Claim for compensation was filed under Section 163A of MV Act

and the Insurance Company claimed that accident took place due to self-

negligence of rider of motorcycle who had borrowed the vehicle from

the owner (respondent no.1 therein) and therefore, stepped into shoes of

the owner of vehicle. His legal heirs therefore, cannot claim

compensation against the owner, as well as, the insurer of offending

vehicle, as he cannot be the claimant and recipient together.

43. The Tribunal held that since rider of the vehicle was not the owner

and a third party, the claim petition was held to be maintainable.

However, upon perusing the material on record, Karnataka High Court

held that when a claim petition is filed under section 163A of MV Act,

Tribunal first has to decide the involvement of alleged vehicle in the

accident. Thereafter, if the owner or borrower of the vehicle is

responsible for the accident, insurance company is not liable to pay

compensation.

44. The Court held that borrower of the vehicle stepped into shoes of

owner of the vehicle. While, the insurance policy covered risk of third

parties, the legal heirs of borrower of the vehicle would not become third

party, since they cannot both be recipient and payer of compensation.

45. In National Insurance Company Limited v Ashalata Bhowmik

and Ors, (2018) 9 SCC 801, the case concerned Dilip Bhowmik who was

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 14 of 16

driving his vehicle, met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and

was ultimately succumbed to them. His legal heirs filed a claim petition

seeking compensation which was resisted by the insurer on the basis that

the deceased himself was owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and

not a third party within the meaning of MV Act and the accident had

occurred due to the negligence of deceased.

46. This contention was accepted by High Court. However, the

insurance company was directed to pay compensation, against which an

appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, where it was noted that since

no other vehicle was involved in the accident and deceased himself was

responsible for the accident, being owner of offending vehicle, he was

not a third party within the meaning of MV Act. The deceased was a

victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving; therefore, a claim

could not be maintained by legal representatives under Section 166 of

MV Act.

47. Reliance in this regard was placed by the Supreme Court on a

previous case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v Jhuma Saha & Ors.,

(2007) 9 SCC 263.

48. Counsel for appellant has sought to rely upon all these decisions

which relate to claims made on behalf of injured or deceased

owner/insured of the insured vehicle.

49. These are not relatable to claims which are made on behalf of

occupants of the car or third parties. Therefore, reliance on these

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 15 of 16

decisions is untenable and misplaced. The present appeal is not a case

where claimants being, Dhiraj Trehan and Geeta Trehan have raised

claims on behalf of their deceased father/husband late Kamal Trehan.

50. Claims have been filed by them on account of them being third

parties/ occupants of car which was being driven by the insured/owner/

driver of offending vehicle and it was found that the car was being

driven rashly and negligently.

51. Having proved causation, they were entitled to compensation

under the insurance policy of the vehicle, which would cover third-party

liability and would also include occupants of the vehicle.

52. It would be an absurd situation to accept the contention of Counsel

for appellant/Insurance Company. In a scenario where occupants of the

vehicle are not related to driver/ owner of the vehicle, the presumption

would therefore be that they would be entitled to claim as third parties,

whereas, if members of a family suffer injuries and driver/owner of the

vehicle dies in the process, family members will not be entitled to

compensation on account of them representing the estate of

driver/owner.

53. Once liability has been fastened on driver/owner of the vehicle

who has since passed away, the natural corollary is that liability of

Insurance Company kicks in against all injured or deceased third parties,

which would include occupants of the car. This is certainly the mandate

under Section 146 of MV Act, which provides as under:

`

MAC.APP. 13/2026 & MAC. APP. 14/2026 Page 16 of 16

“146. Necessity for Insurance against Third Party

Risks

(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or

cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle

in a public place, unless there is in force, in relation to

the use of the vehicle by that person or that other

person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance

complying with the requirements of this Chapter”

54. Accordingly, it would be well advised that Insurance Companies

do not give permission to file appeals of such nature, when issues of

liability regarding occupants of a vehicle are very well established as

noted by this Court in Yashpal (supra).

Conclusion

55. Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed. Pending applications are

rendered infructuous.

56. In view of the above, compensation awarded be released as per the

impugned award.

57. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant/Insurance

Company.

58. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL

(JUDGE)

JANUARY 29, 2026/RK/sp