Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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