Liability in Road Accident Cases: Non-Possession of Valid Permit is Ground for Compensation Recovery: Delhi High Court

104
0
Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

 Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the principle that the non-possession of a valid permit for a motor vehicle involved in a road accident is a legitimate ground for the recovery of compensation. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla on December 11, 2023, sheds light on the legal intricacies surrounding road accident cases and the liability of insurance companies.

In the case of IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD versus ASHA & ORS, the appellant challenged the compensation awarded to the victims of a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The central issue revolved around whether the lack of a valid permit for the offending vehicle could absolve the insurance company from the liability to pay compensation.

Justice Chawla’s verdict emphasized the importance of a valid permit for driving a motor vehicle in a particular area and highlighted that its absence could be considered a fundamental breach of the conditions of an insurance policy. The judgment referred to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and cited the precedent of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 to support this stance.

The court dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to release the awarded compensation amount to the claimants. However, it left open the question of singular liability against the owner of the offending vehicle and the existence of a permit condition in the insurance policy for future consideration in an appropriate case.

Date of Decision: December 11, 2023

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS ASHA & ORS

Download Judgment

Share: