Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Saiman Mahilary, S/o Sri khargeswar Mahilary of Vill – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Represented by Its Divisional Manager, Bongaigaon Divisional Office – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
The appellant in this case is Sri Saiman Mahilary, who is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and he has prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The respondents in this case are the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sri Kanaj Kumar Brahma, who was the owner of the offending vehicle and Sri Jwngsar Basumatary, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and are arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 4 respectively.
2. It is submitted that the appellant has spent more than Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lacs) as medical expenses but a lesser amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is also submitted that the Insurer did not adduce proper evidence. It is also contended that the Tribunal has ignored that the driver was holding a valid driving license.
3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.12.2015 of the learned Trial Court passed in MAC Case No. 64/2014.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company laid stress in their argument that the policy of the offending vehicle was Act only policy and thus, the owner is liable to pay. It is submitted that this judgment
The court ruled that an insurance company must substantiate the terms of an 'act only' policy; failing which, the insurer is liable to compensate for injuries including those of a pillion rider.
Act policy excludes coverage for pillion rider on two-wheeler as gratuitous passenger; LMV (NT) licence invalid for motorcycle; insurer exonerated, owner liable for compensation.
An 'Act Only Policy' does not cover pillion riders unless additional premium is paid, and such riders cannot be treated as third parties under the insurance policy in the context of liability for acc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the risk of the pillion rider cannot be covered under the 'Act Only Policy' without any extra premium.
An act only policy under the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover the risk of a pillion rider, and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for injuries sustained by a pillion rider.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under an 'act only' policy, the insurance company's liability does not extend to covering the risk of the pillion rider, as per the interpreta....
Insurance liability under a 'Liability only Policy' does not extend to cover claims for injuries or deaths of gratuitous passengers, including pillion riders.
A learner's licence is valid under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Insurance Company failed to prove breach of policy conditions, leading to a revised compensation amount.
Point of law: It must be remarked that the claimant has not raised any issue about the finding on the point of contributory negligence and apportionment of liability between the two vehicles, to wit,....
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
