Skip to main content

Insurance Companies Not Liable To Pay Compensation To Unauthorised Passengers

In Bharati AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Aandi. & others, the Madras High Court was hearing a bunch of appeals challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had, while granting compensation to eighteen victims of a road accident, directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to unauthorised passengers as well, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The claimants in the case at hand, had engaged a goods vehicle to travel for a wedding, and were therefore, unauthorized passengers.

The court noted that following a 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147 of the Act restricts an insurer’s liability in case of motor vehicle accidents to a third party; the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in a goods vehicle; and the passenger of a public service vehicle.

It also noted that Section 149 (2)(a)(i)(c) of the Act allows insurance companies to be exempted from liability if the vehicle in question, being a transport vehicle, was used for a purpose not allowed by its permit.

The court then noted, “No doubt true that in many cases the claimants may not be able to realise the award amount from the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. But, the said factual situation alone cannot impel us to do something against the provisions of the statute and the decisions of the larger benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”

The Madras High Court therefore reiterated that insurance companies cannot be held liable to compensate for deaths or injuries to unauthorised/ gratuitous passengers in goods or transport vehicles.

In doing so, the Bench comprising Justice KK Sasidharan and Justice R. Subramanian refused to consider as precedent the recent judgment in Shivraj v. Rajendra, wherein the Supreme Court had affirmed the High Court’s conclusion that the insurance company was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the unauthorised passenger, but had opined that the High Court should have directed the company to pay such compensation with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner.

Article referred: https://www.livelaw.in/insurance-companies-not-liable-to-pay-compensation-to-unauthorised-passengers-for-motor-vehicle-deaths-injuries-madras-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more