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

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.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...