Skip to main content

Insurance co. exonerated in compensation case

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has exonerated an insurance firm from paying compensation to a road accident victim on the grounds that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) driving licence.
The Tribunal, holding both the driver and victim equally responsible for the accident, also reduced the compensation amount, to be paid by the owner of the truck that hit the complainant Ramesh Eknath Kamble’s motorcycle at a signal light.

The Member of the Tribunal and Additional Sessions Judge, S Y Kulkarni, in his award, stated that non-possession of the licence by the truck driver violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

'Therefore, in present facts and circumstances of the case I hold that insurance company deserves to be exonerated from the responsibility to pay the compensation to the applicant.

'In present facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that only the opponent the owner of the offending vehicle can be held responsible to pay the compensation to the applicant,' he added.

Kamble, a resident of Thane, had claimed that at the time of the accident that took place on February 17, 2008, he was earning a total income of Rs 30,000 from his business.

The accident left him with injuries to leg, causing permanent partial disability.

He filed the claim against the owner of the tanker Chandrakant G Mhatre and the Insurance company The National Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured.

In his order, the judge worked out a total compensation eligible for the applicant as Rs. 12,69,002 but as he had held that both the driver of the tanker and the claimant were equally responsible for the accident, he said that 50 per cent of the amount towards negligence on part of the applicant is required to be deducted towards his negligence and he can be granted only Rs. 6,34,501.

He ordered the owner of the tanker to pay this amount with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum to the claiman

Article referred: http://www.indlawnews.com/NewsDisplay.aspx?35397af3-5610-4bd6-9ba5-aebda9886ce6

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil