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

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...