Tag: Motor Vehicles Act

Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted

Supreme Court Judgment Based on the policy's "Limitation as to Use" clause, the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance company cannot deny liability for a utility vehicle registered and permitted as a "contract carriage" to carry passengers. The clause applies only to goods carriages, and the insurer, having issued the policy with full knowledge of the vehicle's registration and permit, is bound to indemnify the owner for third-party claims. The "pay and recover" order was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a tragic accident involving a utility vehicle, which led to the filing of five separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) by the legal representatives of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle, Shyam Lal, was the appellant b...
Read More
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...
Read More
Supreme Court Says No :Can You Change Your Mind After Cashing the Cheque?
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says No :Can You Change Your Mind After Cashing the Cheque?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of a time-barred review petition. It affirmed the legal principle that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate"—they cannot accept a benefit under an order and later challenge it. A party who voluntarily accepts compensation with full knowledge is bound by their conduct and cannot subsequently resile from it. Facts Of The Case: In a motor accident claim case concerning the death of Priyank Chand, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of approximately Rs. 11.82 lakh to his legal heirs: his mother (Urmila Chand, the appellant), his wife (Sonu Chand), and his two minor children. Upon a joint application filed by all claimants, including Urmila, the Tribunal passed a disbursement order on 21.04.2015. As...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation

The Supreme Court, applying the principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, held that a self-employed person, even one working abroad, is entitled to an addition of 40% of their established income towards future prospects when computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court enhanced the compensation by recalculating the loss of dependency and conventional heads as per the standardized formula mandated by the Constitution Bench. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on 31st August 2007 at approximately 3:00 a.m. at Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal. The deceased, Rajinder Singh Mihnas, a 31-year-old U.S. national, was travelling in a car from Delhi to Hoshiarpur when it was struck by a rashly and negligently driven Swaraj Mazd...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that allowances forming part of a deceased's salary, if used for family support, must be included in income computation for motor accident compensation. It applies established principles from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi to include future prospects and awards consortium as per Magma General Insurance, ensuring just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Facts Of The Case: On February 16, 2009, Lokender Kumar died in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Santro car on the Sohna-Gurgaon Road. His widow and two minor children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Gurgaon, seeking Rs. 25 lakhs in compensation. The Tribunal, considering his basic salary of Rs. 3,665 per month and applying a multip...
Read More
Not Just Salaried: Supreme Court Rules Self-Employed Accident Victims Get Future Income Rise
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Insurer Must Pay Full Claim If It Didn’t Plead ‘Limited Liability’ Earlier
22Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Insurer Must Pay Full Claim If It Didn’t Plead ‘Limited Liability’ Earlier

The Supreme Court ruled that an insurer's contractual liability under a personal accident cover is distinct from its statutory third-party liability. The defense of "limited liability" must be specifically pleaded and proved before the Tribunal; it cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. The insurer was thus liable to pay the full compensation awarded. Facts Of The Case: The deceased, who was the brother of the car owner, was driving the vehicle when its right rear tyre suddenly burst. This caused the car to go out of control, topple, and resulted in a fatal head injury that led to his death. The car was also occupied by the owner, his wife, and the deceased's wife, all of whom sustained injuries. The claimants, the deceased's widow, minor children, and parents, filed for compensa...
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout Despite FIR Delay : Justice for Victim’s Family
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout Despite FIR Delay : Justice for Victim’s Family

The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court's decision, ruling that the delay in FIR registration and minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony did not disprove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The Court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing that the insurer failed to examine the investigating officer to challenge the evidence. The judgment reinforced the principle that technicalities should not override substantive justice in motor accident claims. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a motor accident where the deceased, a school peon, died after his motorcycle collided with a speeding vehicle. His wife and three minor children filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded them compensation of ₹46,29,15...
Read More
Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”

The Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies cannot be compelled to provide non-monetary relief like prosthetic limbs or ongoing medical supervision to accident victims. Emphasizing indemnity principles, the Court held compensation must be monetary, calculating ₹12 lakh for future prosthetic/wheelchair needs. It overturned the High Court's directive for in-kind support, reaffirming insurers' liability is limited to pecuniary compensation under motor accident laws. The judgment clarifies that "just compensation" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes imposing perpetual welfare obligations on insurers. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident on 21.12.2008, where respondent Suraj Kumar, a 22-year-old tempo cleaner, suffered severe injuries...
Read More