Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

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       

 

Similar News