Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SURESH – Appellant
Versus
VASANTHA SHETTY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. confirming that insurer cannot claim negligence against the claimant in compensation claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
ORDER :
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, A.C.J.
These matters have been placed before us on an order of reference dated 30.07.2009 by a Full Bench referring following questions for consideration:
“1. Whether injured person/claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even if it is shown that the accident was on account of the negligence of the injured person/victim?
2. If the injured person/victim is the owner himself, whether the said owner is entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act?”
2. The first question has been answered by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar and Another [2017 KHC 5644] and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others [2008 KHC 4640] . The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) in Paragraph 8 and 9 held as follows :
-
“8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under S.163 -A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made witho
Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act Section 163A cannot be denied due to claimant's negligence, aligning with Apex Court precedents to expedite justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defense of negligence by the insurance company is not permissible in a claim proceeding under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It cannot be recognized as an absolute proposition of law that a third party passenger in a hired vehicle can only claim compensation from owner/insurer of offending vehicle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not required to plead or establish the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the ....
Motor Accident - Respondent/claimant is not covered under the M.V. Act as the injured/claimant stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle in question. Thus, he cannot be stated to be third pa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to claim compensation under 'No Fault Liability' (Section 163A), the victim must be an innocent bystander, and the accident must occur without....
Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants are entitled to compensation without proving the victim's negligence, as legislative intent prioritizes expedited resolution over fault determ....
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
