insurer liability - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

11Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer is liable to indemnify claims for the owner of goods or his authorized representative traveling in a goods vehicle. Furthermore, the registered owner remains liable for compensation until a transfer is formally reported to the Registering Authority under Section 50, and the insurer cannot avoid its liability based on unsubstantiated assertions. Facts Of The Case: A motor accident involving a goods vehicle resulted in several claims for death and injury. The injured and deceased were petty hawkers, such as a fish monger and a vegetable vendor, who were accompanying their goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurance company contested its liability on two primary gro...

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...

Not Just Salaried: Supreme Court Rules Self-Employed Accident Victims Get Future Income Rise

The Supreme Court held that self-employed claimants are entitled to future prospects, affirming the principles in Santosh Devi and Pranay Sethi. It further ruled that uncontroverted medical evidence on disability must be accepted in its entirety, and the percentage of disability assessed by the treating doctor cannot be arbitrarily reduced by the Tribunal or High Court without reasoning. Facts Of The Case: On November 19, 2016, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the appellant, Lokesh B, a 38-year-old tailor, was driving his Omni car on the Peenya flyover in Bengaluru. His vehicle collided with a stationary lorry that was allegedly parked in the middle of the flyover without any indicators or reflective warnings. As a result of the collision, Lokesh sustained grievous injuries, including skull f...