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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...