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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...