Skip to main content

Insurance for owner in goods vehicle

The Hyderabad High Court has held that a person travelling in a goods transport vehicle as owner of the goods will be eligible to claim compensation from the insurance company.

Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao was upholding an award passed by the chairman of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal of Ananthpur in directing United India Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 2 lakh to the family of Tammineni Mallikarjuna, who died in an accident.

The father of the deceased submitted before the tribunal that his son, besides doing cloth business, was a paddy harvester and during October, 2000, he took his harvest to Nizamabad district for the paddy harvesting season. He told the tribunal that on October 26, 2000, his son engaged a van to transport the harvest from Nizamabad to Kesepalli in Ananthpur district and on the way driver of the van drove in a rash manner and failed to see an electric wire hanging across the road. The live wires on the outskirts of Kesepalli, touched the goods and his son who was sitting in it and the driver died on the spot.

The insurance company challenged the award on the ground that the deceased travelled in a goods transport vehicle as a passenger and hence his risk will not be covered under the terms of the policy.

Justice Durga Prasad held that tenor of cross-examination of the father by the counsel of the company would give an inference that the company did not dispute that deceased’s family owned the harvest which was being  carried by the deceased for harvesting before accident.

The judge said “It is clear that the deceased travelled on the paddy harvester as its owner. Since the towing van was towing the harvester at the time of accident. The deceased can be referred as owner of the goods with reference to crime van also." Maintaining that policy copy would show that owner of the van paid premium to give coverage to non-paid passengers, the judge ruled that the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was owner of the goods but not as passenger.

Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141218/nation-current-affairs/article/insurance-owner-goods-vehicle

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...