You often read in insurance ads about reading the insurance policy carefully before buying one. What this means is to carefully check the inclusions and exclusions of an insurance policy. Recently, another exclusion has been added for insurance companies as per a Supreme Court ruling – No insurance payouts for the insured's next of kin, if the insured dies due to their own rash driving. To know more about this, how this ruling was made and on which case, read along.
What is the Case Background for this Verdict from the Supreme Court?
The ruling of the Supreme Court was based on an ongoing case whose verdict was given on 3rd July, 2025. This case was about N.S. Ravisha, who was speeding recklessly in his Fiat Linea near Arasikere (Karnataka) on June 18, 2014, carrying family members. He lost control and the vehicle overturned, resulting in his death.
His family sought ₹80 lakh in compensation from United India Insurance, citing his status as the primary breadwinner earning around ₹3 lakh per month, but the claim was rejected by the MACT (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal). The family took this decision to court to fight against it, but the Karnataka High Court and; Supreme Court upheld the decision in July 2025.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
Here are the highlights from the Supreme Court’s Verdict on the case of N. S. Ravishna v/s United India Insurance:
- A bench led by Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan upheld the Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of the claim.
- The key finding as Ravisha’s own rash and negligent driving caused the accident, he was deemed a "self‑tortfeasor" (A person who commits a wrongful act) and therefore the insurer has no liability.
- The Court reiterated that allowing heirs to claim compensation would violate the “fundamental principle that one cannot benefit from one’s wrong. (Reference to Ningamma v. United India Insurance (2009) 13 SCC 710:).
- The court reinforced that legal heirs cannot receive compensation under a Third‑Party Motor Insurance Policy when the insured caused their own death as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
- The judgment noted that “a borrower driving a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner with respect to liability,” affirming that borrowing does not confer eligibility for compensation (Referencing Borrower Equals Owner - Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441).
What are the Legal Implications of Motor Insurance Claims?
Going forward the ruling in N. S. Ravisha v. United India Insurance has affected motor insurance claims in this way:
| Impact Area | Details |
|---|---|
| Insurance Liability | Third-party motor insurance does not cover fatalities caused by the insured’s negligence |
| Personal Responsibility | The ruling underlines that drivers are personally liable for reckless driving, even if fatal |
| Legal Precedent | Confirms that heirs cannot benefit financially from a death caused by the deceased’s wrongful act (“no one may reap from their sin”) |
Insurance Consumer Advisory for Avoiding Legal Implications
This case is a prime example of understanding your insurance policy and driving responsibly. Any third-party motor insurance policy such as four wheeler insurance or two wheeler insurance will always have these exclusions:
- Driving under the influence of alcohol or any other substance
- Illegal driving (Using the car for racing, apart from its intended purpose)
- An illegal driver (An underage driver, or a driver who is not legally allowed to drive)
- Rash driving (Aggressive overtaking, overspeeding, breaking traffic laws, etc.)
Driving responsibly is not just about dodging legal troubles, but also about ensuring the safety of you and those around you. Traffic rules are in place to provide safety to all. Follow all traffic laws to avoid fines, avoid any complications in insurance claims and most importantly – to avoid endangering one’s own life or that of those around them.
Key Note
The Supreme Court ruled on July 3, 2025, that no compensation will be given to the heir if the insured dies in an accident caused by rash driving. This decision of the Supreme Court highlights the importance of personal responsibility and following traffic rules to avoid fatal accidents. While the decision of the Supreme Court is legally sound, it also brings to light the harsh realities that the families of the deceased have to face. It also serves as a reminder that insurance is a protection against unfortunate and unforeseen events, and not a free ticket for reckless behaviour. Drive safely, follow rules, read policy documents carefully and stay insured.
