Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Judge, J
Insurance Company – Appellant
Versus
Claimant – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal failed to follow compensation limits under section 163-a. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insurance company argues against liability due to claimant borrowing vehicle. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court asserts borrower is not entitled to claim compensation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. precedents confirm insuree cannot claim under section 163-a. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court allows appeal and sets aside previous award. (Para 12 , 13) |
1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 17.8.2009, whereby the learned Seventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur awarded a sum of Rs. 4,53,500 to the claimant under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act .
2. At the outset, it may be stated that though the claimant filed a claim petition under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act , the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation not by following the Schedule under S.163 - A but by following the principles under S.166 of the Act. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000 for medical expenses whereas in terms of maximum of Rs. 15,000 can be awarded in a claim petition filed under S.163 - A of the Act. It is more than obvious that basic principles of law of compensat
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
