Back
M. M. SATHAYE
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kekanaje Balkrishna Bhat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 2/Claimants. As regards Respondent No. 3 (driver), the appeal is already dismissed. None appears for Respondent No. 4 (owner) though served.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the said Act’ for short) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 22.02.2021 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition (MACP) No. 22 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Sindhudurg-Oros. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Appellant/Insurance Company is jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs. 21,60,760/- along with interest 9% p.a. to the claimants from the date of claim.
3. Few facts are as follows. On 16.05.2016 at about 2.15 p.m. one Prabhavati Balkrushna Bhat (deceased) was travelling with her husband and son (claimants) from Manglur to Jaigad-Ratanagiri in Alto Car bearing No. KA-19-MC-0254 (offending vehicle). When the car reached Zarap Muslimwadi area, Respondent No. 3-the Driver, who is brother of Claimant No. 1, lost control of the car which swerved on one side of the road and while trying to control the vehicl
The court reinforced that in claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden of proof lies with the insurer to demonstrate policy breaches.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a direct nexus between the injuries sustained in an accident and the subsequent death of the victim to claim compensat....
The court affirmed that injuries from a motor vehicle accident can establish causation for subsequent death, emphasizing the importance of medical evidence linking the two.
In motor accident claims, the burden of proof lies on the claimants to establish their case based on preponderance of probability, and failure to counter evidence by the opposing party supports the c....
The onus of proof regarding the validity of the driving license and authorization to drive the vehicle remains with the insurance company, and the violation of insurance policy terms cannot be presum....
The court determined that despite initial perceptions of murder, the evidence supported the incident as a motor accident, warranting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the petitioners in the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Insurance companies remain liable for compensation to third parties despite the driver's invalid license unless there is a fundamental breach of terms.
Insurance policy requires valid vehicle permit; absence constitutes breach, affecting liability and compensation calculations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
