Skip to main content

MACT: Insurer liable to pay third party even when driver is drunk

Cause Title : Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs Girivasan E. K., MACA NO. 616 OF 2018, Kerala High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 24.01.2023

Corum : The Honourable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas

Citied: 

  1. Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]
  2. New India Assurance Co. v. Kamala & Others [(2001) 4 SCC 342]
  3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan [(2004) 13 SCC 224]
  4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., rep by its Deputy Manager (Legal) vs. Manju Devi and Others [2014 SCC OnLine AP 232]

Background

The appellant, while travelling in an autorickshaw. A car driven by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the autorickshaw and he was thrown out to the road, and he sustained serious injuries. Though he approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,40,000/-, against which he has preferred this appeal.

In this matter, the insurance company (3rd Respondent) while admitting the fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with them as on the date of accident claimed that they are not liable to indemnify the insured as the 1st respondent, at the time of accident, was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

The learned Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant and permitted the Insurance Company to recover the same from respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

This raised an interesting issue of the liability of the insurer when terms of the policy has been violated.

Judgment

The High Court observed that it has been held by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance (supra) & Oriental Insurance Company (supra) and by the Andhra High Court in Bajaj Allianz (supra) , that when a valid Insurance Policy has been issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance, the burden is on the insurer to pay the third parties, whether or not there has been any breach or violation of the Policy conditions. But the amount so paid by the insurer to third parties can be allowed to be recovered from the insured, if as per the Policy conditions the insurer had no liability to pay such sum to the insured.

Even if, there is a condition in the Policy Certificate that driving of a vehicle in an intoxicated condition is violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, still the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. Undoubtedly, when the driver is in an inebriated state, certainly, his consciousness and senses will be impaired so as to render him unfit to drive a vehicle. But the liability under the Policy is statutory in nature and so the Company is not liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation to the victim. Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability totally on account of drunken driving of the driver, as it is not a ground to exonerate the Insurance Company from payment of compensation as far as third parties are concerned; as the policy is statutory in nature.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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