Back
N. MALA
HDFC ERFO General Insurance Co. Ltd. , – Appellant
Versus
A. Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 16.07.201 made in M.C.O.P.No.1251 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award and decree dated 16.07.201 made in M.C.O.P.No.1251 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the claim petition for the sake of convenience.
3. The deceased was aged 26 years and as a Programmer in ETI India, Chennai was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the father and the third respondent, the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 26.11.2006 at about 01.00 a.m., while the deceased was driving the 1st respondent''s car bearing Registration No.TN- 05-B-0666 from East to West direction on Cuddalore (Palur) Panruti Main Road, Thirumanikuzhi, a pedestrian suddenly crossed the road and in order to avoid the accident the deceased swerved the vehicle and hit a tamarind tree. Due to impact the deceased su
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove negligence against the driver for imposing liability under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Entitlement to compensation under Section 163-A requires the deceased to be a third party, and the claimant cannot maintain a claim if the deceased was the tort-feasor.
The defense of negligence is not permissible under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the entitlement to compensation in hit and run cases can be invoked under this section.
In a claim proceeding under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurer cannot raise any defense of negligence on the victim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer cannot raise a defense of negligence in a claim proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act or even if it is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not legally maintainable.
Accident claim - Two wheeler and the policy is only for third party. Hence, the wife travelled along with her husband as a pillion rider and the accident has taken place due to the wrong driving by t....
Point of law: liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have m....
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....
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
