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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...