Legal Heirs Claim - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

9Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower courts. The ruling signifies that the appellants' legal challenge against the insurance company's position was not tenable in law. The court found no merit to interfere, allowing the impugned judgment and the terms of the insurance policy to stand. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by Vanita and others, likely the legal heirs of a deceased, seeking compensation under a motor accident claim. The accident presumably involved a vehicle insured with M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially ruled in the case, and its decision was subsequently challenged in a High Court. It appears that the claimants' appeal was unsuccessful in the Hig...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles

The Supreme Court held that a driver with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license can operate a commercial vehicle (gross weight ≤7500 kg) without additional endorsement, affirming Mukund Dewangan. However, the Insurance Company was liable under the "Pay and Recover" principle despite the "Liability Only Policy" excluding gratuitous passengers, citing Baljit Kaur and Pranay Sethi. Compensation was enhanced by 10% under conventional heads. Facts Of The Case: On 27th November 2013, Gokul Prasad, a 32-year-old cloth seller, died in an accident involving a TATA 407 truck (registration No. M.P. 53G/0386) near Kurwaiha Ghati Road. The truck, driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 3, was returning from a weekly market. The deceased’s legal representatives (Appellants) filed a claim under S...

Supreme Court Overturns Contributory Negligence in Fatal Bike Crash, Awards Full Compensation

The Supreme Court quashed the contributory negligence finding, holding the car driver solely liable for the 2009 accident. It ruled that the High Court erred by ignoring eyewitness testimony (PW-4) and a crucial site plan proving the motorcyclist was on his correct side. Full compensation was restored as deductions under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were invalid. The Court emphasized beneficial interpretation in accident claims and permitted late evidence admission given the summary nature of proceedings. Facts Of The Case: On July 26, 2009, Gautam (22 years, bachelor) drove a new motorcycle (insured by Bajaj Allianz) with Harpal Singh (30 years, pillion rider) near Kaithal, Haryana. An Alto car (insured by New India Assurance), driven by Gulzar Singh, collided head-on wi...