Back
NANI TAGIA
New India Assurance Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Ankapilla Uma – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.
2. None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 despite service of notices on the said respondents as indicated in the Office Note, dated 13.03.2018.
3. This is an appeal u/s. 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, preferred against the judgment & award, dated 30.04.2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MAC. Case No. 464/2013, under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,67,000/-along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment, to the claimants who are the respondents No. 1 & 2, herein.
4. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, briefly, stated are as follows:
5. A claim petition u/s. 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 as claimants, claiming a compensation of Rs. 9,10,000/-from the appellant/Insurance Company on account of death of the deceased A. Sombabu @ Sombabu in a motor vehicle accident.
6. It is stated
The legal representatives of a deceased, who had borrowed a vehicle covered under a package policy, cannot claim compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as they are consider....
A borrower of a vehicle does not qualify as a third party under Sec. 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and is not entitled to compensation.
A borrower of a vehicle is not considered a third party under the insurance policy, and the insurance company's liability is limited to the terms of the contract.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the M.V. Act, the liability of the insurance company depends on the interpretation of the provisions regarding third-party claims, an....
A borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner, disqualifying their legal heirs from claiming compensation against the insurance company.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the owner himself is involved in the accident.
A claim u/s 140 of the Act may be made not merely as in terms of the award but it could be even at the time of the final disposal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle, could not be considered a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the cla....
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
