Back
BIREN VAISHNAV, MAULIK J. SHELAT
Sahjanand Torus And Travels – Appellant
Versus
Bhartiben Naisedhbhai Bhandari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Maulik J.Shelat, J.
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr.Krupali N. Bhatt waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.5 and Mr. Ruja N. Desai learned advocate waives service of notie of admissions for respondent no.4. The presence of original claimants are not required for adjudication to the present appeal as the issue of liability touching between the appellant and respondent no.5 – Insurance Company.
2. The present appeal is filed by the original opponent no.2- owner of the Luxury Bus bearing registration no. GJ.14.X.9396 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) & Principal District Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.270 of 2017.
3. The parties will be referred as their original position before the tribunal.
4. Short facts of the case appear to be as under;
4.1 On 17.07.2017, late Krunal Naisedhbhai Bhandari was travelling in Luxury bus No. GJ.14.X.9396 insured with original claimant no.3 – insurance company of the luxury bus no.GJ.14.X.9396, which met with an accident, wherein the said Krunal N
The insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimants if a valid permit exists at the time of the accident, negating any right to recover from the vehicle owner.
The court established that contractual engagement with a transport corporation can negate permit requirements, and the burden of proof lies with the insurance company to demonstrate any licensing vio....
Liability of the insurance company in a motor accident case and the inapplicability of permit condition violation as a defense under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act
The absence of evidence for contract carriage usage invalidates claims of insurance policy breach, emphasizing that passenger status does not imply vehicle hiring.
The court remanded liability issues back to the tribunal for review, allowing both parties to present evidence for reevaluation.
Deviation from a permit route can be excused under compelling circumstances, thus not absolving insurance liability in accident claims.
The court upheld the Tribunal's award of compensation, affirming that negligence need not be proved in claims under Section 163A of the M.V. Act.
Liability of the insurance company in case of violation of R.T.O. rules and breach of permit conditions
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
