The Supreme Court has once again drawn a firm line in the sand: if someone dies while recklessly driving, their family can’t cash in on a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. No exceptions—even if the loss is tragic.
This ruling came down on July 2 from a vacation bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, who refused to disturb a Karnataka High Court judgment that had already closed the door on a ₹80 lakh claim.
The case involved a man named N.S. Ravisha, who met a fatal end after losing control of a Fiat Linea during a high-speed, reckless drive. His vehicle toppled, and he died on the spot. His wife, son, and parents took the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Arsikere, invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to claim compensation from the insurer.
But the tribunal wasn’t buying it. Ravisha, they ruled, was the tortfeasor—the person at fault. And under law, no one is rewarded for causing their own demise. The High Court later agreed, citing a 2009 precedent (Ningamma vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), which reinforced the idea that letting a wrongdoer’s heirs collect damages would essentially reward the breach.
The family pushed a different angle: Ravisha wasn’t the owner of the car, just a borrower. So why should the insurance company be off the hook?
Once again, the courts stood their ground. The High Court, pointing to an older 1977 case (Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Nayan), explained that someone borrowing a car takes on the legal position of the owner. And if that person crashes the vehicle through their own negligence, there’s no indemnity—no payout—for their estate.
The Supreme Court found nothing worth reopening. The petition was dismissed, and the ruling was left intact. The message? Liability doesn’t vanish with death, and recklessness behind the wheel isn’t something that can be financially redeemed.
