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 :
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:
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?”
-
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under S.163A of the Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim”
-
5. In regard to second question, we also find Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others [2008 KHC 4640] and Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009 KHC 5046] and Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another [2020 KHC 6008] the Apex Court held that the proceedings under 163A cannot be maintained by an owner himself to make compensation for accident caused or occasioned by him. A person cannot be claimant and recipient of the compensation. This statutory provision embodies the
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....
Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are entitled to compensation without the necessity of proving negligence on the part of the deceased.
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
