dependency loss - The Legal Chamber

Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Insurance Must Pay Victims First: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ in Route Deviation Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms the application of the "pay and recover" principle where an insured vehicle deviates from its permitted route. While the insurer remains statutorily liable to compensate accident victims, it is entitled to subsequently recover the paid amount from the policyholder for breaching the contract's geographical terms. Facts Of The Case: On October 7, 2014, the deceased Srinivasa (alias Murthy) died on the spot after his motorcycle was hit by a rashly and negligently driven bus (KA-52-9099). His dependents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded ₹18,86,000. Dissatisfied, the claimants appealed to the High Court for enhanced compensation, while the insurance company also appealed...

Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims

In a significant ruling on motor accident claims, the Supreme Court reinforced the principles from Pranay Sethi and Somwati. The Court established that the income of a deceased, even if not fully substantiated, cannot be assessed lower than the notional income of an unskilled labourer, with due consideration for annual increments. It upheld the application of standard multipliers, future prospects, and clarified that loss of consortium is payable to spouses, children, and dependent parents. Facts Of The Case: In a tragic accident on July 25, 2010, four friends from Bijapur on a pilgrimage to Shirdi lost their lives when their car was involved in a head-on collision with a rashly and negligently driven goods lorry on NH-13. The case concerns one of the deceased, a qualified pharmacist, wh...

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims

The Supreme Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proof of negligence is not required for claiming compensation, as the provision operates on a structured formula basis. The Court emphasized that compensation must be computed as per the Second Schedule of the Act, excluding non-scheduled heads like loss of love and affection. It ruled that the deceased, being a third party to the offending vehicle, entitled the claimants to compensation, payable jointly and severally by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The judgment clarified that Section 163A has an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act, ensuring expedited compensation without fault liability adjudication. Facts Of The Case: On the night of November 15, 2006, Surender Singh was driving a tr...