Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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

Latest Legal News