Back
NUPUR BHATI
Devji S/o Homa Ji Meena – Appellant
Versus
Lala Ji S/o Jhoma Ji Meena – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Both these misc. appeals have been preferred by the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle (Car No.GJ-6/A-5777) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 19.11.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (FT) No.3, Udaipur Camp Salumber in MAC Case Nos.116/2009 and 117/2009 respectively, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were partly allowed while awarding compensation of Rs.19,000/-and Rs.4,49,000/- in favour of respective claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2 while exonerating the insurance companies from their liability to pay the compensation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants filed two claim petitions claiming compensation. Claimant- Lala filed Claim Case No.116/2009 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident; and the claimants Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 others filed claim petition claiming compensation on
The court established that an 'act only' insurance policy does not cover passengers, and negligence by the vehicle driver was sufficient to hold the vehicle owners liable for compensation.
The insurer is liable for compensation even if the claimant lacked a valid driving license, provided the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident.
The court established that the driver of a stationary vehicle is solely liable for accidents due to improper parking without indicators, impacting compensation calculations.
The court established that both drivers were negligent in a road accident, attributing 70% negligence to the bus driver and enhancing compensation for the victims.
The court clarified that insurance companies cannot evade liability if passengers are not gratuitous, emphasizing the importance of evidence presented in court over FIR details.
Point of law : P.W.1 and others went to Hyderabad on the work of R.1 and after attended they were returning back and on the way, this accident took place and hence they are not unauthorized passenger....
Point of law: P.W.1 and others went to Hyderabad on the work of R.1 and after attended they were returning back and on the way, this accident took place and hence they are not the unauthorized passen....
The driver of the offending vehicle does not qualify as a third party under an Act policy; thus, the insurance company is not liable for compensation.
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
