Tag: third party insurance

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 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...
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
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles
14Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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...
Read More