IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Madhu Bala(deceased) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. deceased driver died in motor accident; claimants claim under section 163a (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. owner amends reply admitting employment; insurer denies coverage and liability (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. mact evidence leads to award using section 166 parameters (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. insurer contests maintainability and quantum; claimants invoke section 167 (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. deceased confirmed as owner's employee by preponderance of evidence (Para 15) |
| 6. section 163a claim maintainable under section 167 without negligence proof (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. compensation strictly per second schedule formula with deductions (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. award modified to rs.4,31,900 with 7.5% interest and apportionment (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
Judgment :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the MV Act) against award dated 31st March, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla (in short ‘the MACT) in MAC Petition No. 14-R/2 of 2009 titled Madhu Bala and others vs. National Insurance Company and another , whereby claimants have been held entitled for compensa
Ramkhiladi vs The United India Insurance Company
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others
United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another
R.K. Malik and another vs. Kiran Pal and others
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
G.M.,N.F. Railway Malegaon Guwahati vs. Jitendra Shah and others
Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants are not required to prove negligence; the onus lies on the insurer to establish any negligence to deny compensation.
Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise the defense of negligence against claimants, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party if they are related to the vehicle's....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 163(a) of the MV Act, including the maintainability of claim petitions and the insurer's ability to r....
Murder occurring during felonious acts may still be classified as an accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, allowing for compensation despite the nature of the act.
A claimant must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act; a driver cannot claim compensation for injuries sustained while driving their own vehicle.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.