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

Insurer Not Liable When Deceased Driver "Steps into the Shoes of the Owner”: Chhattisgarh High Court

18 September 2024 3:31 PM

By: sayum


High Court of Chhattisgarh delivered a significant ruling in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Dhalayya Bai & Anr. (MAC No. 1603 of 2016). The court exonerated the insurance company from liability, holding that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident and thus did not qualify for third-party compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The case originated from a fatal accident on May 17, 2011, when Vinod Singh Dhruv was involved in a motorcycle accident. The claimant, Smt. Dhalayya Bai, filed for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that an unknown vehicle had caused the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 364,000 in favor of the claimant, holding the insurance company liable. The insurer appealed, arguing that the deceased was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident, hence not entitled to compensation.

The primary legal issue revolved around whether the deceased was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident and if so, whether he could be considered a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer contended that since the deceased was the driver and had no valid driving license, they were not liable for compensation. The court had to interpret the insurance policy's terms and the legal status of the deceased as the driver of the vehicle.

The court scrutinized the evidence presented, including the First Information Report (Exhibit A-1) and Merg Intimation (Exhibit A-2), which indicated that the deceased was driving the motorcycle. Witness Ravi Singh (AW-2), who was allegedly a pillion rider, made contradictory statements, further casting doubt on the claimant's version. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Rattani and Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company, stating, "the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved."

Given the evidence and Supreme Court precedent, the court concluded that the deceased was the driver, and by stepping into the shoes of the owner, his legal representatives could not claim compensation under Section 163-A. Additionally, since the deceased did not possess a valid driving license, it constituted a violation of the insurance policy terms. Therefore, the insurer was not liable for compensation.

The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the Claims Tribunal's award, relieving the insurer of liability. It held that the deceased being the driver of the offending vehicle meant he could not be treated as a third party for compensation purposes. The court reinforced the principle that the insurer's liability does not extend to the owner or driver of the vehicle under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Dhalayya Bai & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News