"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Court Upholds Liability of Insurer to Compensate Car Occupant in Accident Cases”

04 September 2024 11:11 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the court has affirmed the responsibility of insurance companies to provide compensation to occupants of vehicles involved in accidents. The case, brought forth by The New India Assurance Company, challenged the compensation award granted to Shakuntla Devi by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The pivotal issue revolved around whether the petitioner, as a vehicle occupant, qualified as a ‘third party’ under Section 145 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Delving into the heart of the matter, the court meticulously examined both sides’ contentions and relevant legal precedents. It crucially debated whether the insurance policy extended coverage to the petitioner as a gratuitous passenger. The court’s observation [Para 7-23] meticulously reviewed the nuances of the case, considering the petitioner’s status and the insurance policy’s terms.

The court’s pronouncement [Para 26] brought to light the distinction between an “Act Policy” and a “Comprehensive/Package Policy,” establishing that they held different implications. In this context, the court decisively determined that the insurer bore the responsibility of compensating a vehicle occupant under the umbrella of a “Comprehensive/Package Policy.” The court explicitly dismissed the insurer’s contention that the policy excluded claims from gratuitous passengers.

This momentous judgment not only upholds the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s decision but also sets a far-reaching precedent regarding insurance coverage in accidents involving vehicle occupants. It reaffirms the principle that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” encompasses passengers’ protection, ensuring that their rights and compensation are duly recognized.

D.D-19 August, 2023

The New India Assurance Company vs Shakuntla Devi And Others

Similar News