Back
RAJNESH OSWAL
Vinay Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against award dated 9th July, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal), whereby the owner, respondent No. 1 herein, has been directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,96,000/-to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2. The award has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the learned Tribunal has ignored the material evidence on record regarding income of the appellant and further that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated that absence of licence in not a defence available to the insurer against the third party.
3. Mr. Anil Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments confined his submissions only to the extent that the award was required to be passed against the respondent-Insurance Company with a liberty to recover the same from the owner-respondent No. 1.
4. Mr. D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that as the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of policy of insurance, so the In
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in accorda....
An insurance company can be held liable to pay compensation in motor accident claims, even if it proves a breach of policy conditions, with the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.
Point of Law : Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under section ....
The central legal point established is the obligation of the Insurance Company to satisfy the compensation award, highlighting the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The liability of the insurer to pay compensation is upheld despite the driver's fake license, as the owner failed to prove non-willful violation of policy terms.
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
