MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator 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

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