CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Bombay High Court Holds Insurance Company Liable for Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Lack of Evidence of Hazardous Goods Carriage Leads to Modified Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has held The New India Insurance Company liable to pay compensation in a motor accident case. The court modified the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ruled that there was a lack of evidence to establish the presence of hazardous goods in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

The case, Vijay Arvind Pore v. Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and others, involved an appeal against the decision of the tribunal. The appellant, Mr. Vijay Arvind Pore, had contended that the offending vehicle, which was insured with The New India Insurance Company, was wrongly exempted from liability by the tribunal. The appellant's counsel argued that no witnesses were examined to prove the presence of gas cylinders in the offending vehicle, which was a breach of the insurance policy's terms.

After thoroughly examining the evidence presented before the tribunal, Justice Shivkumar Dige observed that there was no clear proof that the offending truck was carrying hazardous goods, specifically gas cylinders, at the time of the accident. The court noted that the spot panchanamma, which mentioned the name of a gas company on the truck, did not conclusively establish the presence of gas cylinders during the accident. Furthermore, it was revealed that the driver of the offending truck had a valid license for driving a heavy vehicle but lacked the necessary endorsement for carrying hazardous goods.

Justice Dige, while modifying the tribunal's order, emphasized that without sufficient evidence, the liability could not be fixed on the appellant or the insurance company. The court held that there was no breach of the insurance policy's terms and conditions, thus making The New India Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount as determined by the tribunal.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of substantial evidence in establishing liability in motor accident cases. The court's ruling highlights the need for a comprehensive examination of the facts and adherence to the requirements set out in insurance policies. This judgment is expected to have implications for future cases involving insurance companies and the liability of vehicle owners in accidents.

Legal experts are praising the court's decision for upholding the principle of evidence-based judgments and ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the party making the allegations. The modified order holds the insurance company accountable for providing compensation to the claimants, providing them with the necessary support and financial relief.

The New India Insurance Company has been directed by the court to deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The claimants, in turn, have been permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with the accrued interest.

This judgment may potentially lead to a revaluation of the standards applied by tribunals when determining liability in motor accident cases involving insurance companies. It highlights the significance of a thorough examination of evidence and a fair interpretation of policy terms in resolving disputes related to compensation claims in accidents.

DATE: May 4, 2023

Vijay Arvind Pore  VS  Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh       

 

Latest Legal News