Back
K. MURALI SHANKAR
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Pudukkottai – Appellant
Versus
Thanikodi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.)
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2016 dated 15.07.2020 on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.
2. The appellant/insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,95,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Murugesan, who died in an accident occurred on 08.10.2013, challenged the liability mulcted on it and also the quantum of compensation awarded at, by the Tribunal.
3. Admittedly, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 are the parents and the respondents 3 and 4/claimants 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased Murugesan.
4. The case of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants is that on 08.10.2013 the deceased Murugesan had taken the two wheeler Hero Honda bearing Registration No.TN-55-AF-9004 belonging to the fifth respondent/first respondent and proceeded to Karambakudi in the morning and
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.
A borrower of a vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as they step into the shoes of the owner and are not considered a third party.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of personal accident coverage under the insurance policy and the liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles ....
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.
The main legal point established is that the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants if the deceased had paid a separate premium for personal accident cover, but the liability is limi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the owner himself is involved in the accident.
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
