हिंदी समाचार पढ़े
Expand
O.P. Jindal Global University
 
Home / Latest News / HC: Insurance Company not liable for claims by unauthorized passengers in transport vehicles.

HC: Insurance Company not liable for claims by unauthorized passengers in transport vehicles.

November 10, 2018:

Madras High Court
Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently enunciated that insurance companies are not liable to compensate for deaths or injury of unauthorized passengers in goods/transport vehicles such as lorries or transport vans.

While it is not uncommon for groups of people to choose such vehicles for transport to political rallies, labour sites or even functions such as weddings, the Court ruling warns that no relief may be claimed from insurance companies if an accident occurs en route.

The Court was dealing with a case involving 18 compensation claims that rised after an Eicher transport van carrying people from a wedding function got into an accident.

Bench comprising of Justice KK Sasidharan & Justice R Subramanian noted that following a 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act), Section 147 of the Act limits an insurer’s liability to the following classes of persons when it comes to motor vehicle accidents, i.e.

  • a third party.
  • the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in a goods vehicle.
  • the passenger of a public service vehicle.

Also relevant is Section 149 (2) of the Act, which also prescribes the statutory defenses which can be invoked by an insurance company against insurance claims made.

Particularly, as per Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (c), the insurance company would be exempted from liability if the vehicle in question, being a transport vehicle, was used for a purpose not allowed by its permit.

In other words, when it comes to goods vehicles, the insurer’s liability, as regards the persons travelling in such vehicles, is confined to the owner of the goods or his authorized agent alone.

No liability lies as far as any other unauthorized passenger is concerned. Judgment notifies:

“A reading of the above provision [Section 147] makes it clear that an insurance policy which is a mandatory statutory requirement is required to cover only certain classes of persons and not every person who chooses to travel in any type of vehicle. Therefore, there is no mandatory requirement for the Insurance company to cover persons who are travelling as passengers in a non-passenger vehicle/ goods vehicle….

…Therefore, it is clear that an Insurance Company which faces the claim petition can raise a statutory defence to the effect that the vehicle in question was used for a purpose other than the purpose for which the permit had been issued, in order to avoid the liability. Both these provisions [Sections 147 and 149 (2)] have to be necessarily read together.”

To arrive at its conclusion, the Court relied on the prevailing Supreme Court judgements in New India Assurance company Ltd., v Asha Rani and National Insurance Company Ltd, v Baljit Kaur, which were also reaffirmed in United India Insurance company v Nagammal. As such, the High Court noted,

“No doubt true that in many cases the claimants may not be able to realize the award amount from the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. But, the said factual situation alone cannot impel us to do something against the provisions of the statute and the decisions of the larger benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”

In result, the Court, in this case, allowed the appeal filed by the Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company against an order of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which had directed the company to compensate claimants who were injured in an accident on the way back from a wedding in a transport van. The Court found that no statutory liability lay upon the insurance company to compensate for the death/injury which arose as a result.

The MACT had also permitted the insurance company to recover the paid amount from the owner of the vehicle, following the “pay and recover” doctrine. However, as also noted in the Nagammal case, no trial court is permitted to issue such pay and recover directions after the ruling in the Baljit Kaur case.

Therefore it set aside the MACT’s order as far as the liability of the insurance company was concerned. The compensation ordered by the MACT was directed to be recovered directly from the owner of the vehicle.

Before parting with the case, the Court also recorded its gratitude for the assistance offered on the issue by Amicus Curiae N Vijayaraghavan. Arguments on behalf of the Bharathi AXA Insurance company was made by advocate S Arunkumar.

Facebook Comments

 
Related tags :
 
If India takes One Step, we will take Two by Satish If India takes One Step, we will take Two ...................by Satish Missing the Point Missing the Point pic by english blog TOI State of Affairs Women Safety: State of Affairs             pic by mangal

Hindu

Demonitisation Diaries 2 Demonitisation Diaries 2  pic by sify Lawyers Bearing the Burden Literally Lawyers Bearing the Burden Literally pic by OMG Acheche DIn Acheche Din     pic by sify Demonitisation Diaries 1 Demonitisation Diaries 1                                  pic by sify   Netas in Election mode Netas in Election mode Hindu

pinterest

Tax Reforms    by Hindu Tax Reforms by Hindu Hindu

TOI

150425_-_farmers_a_2384764f

Hindu

Auto Driver thrashed for no fault Auto Driver thrashed for no fault,                  source oneindia Hindu Hindu

TOI

State of Two Nations State of Two Nations               pic by sandeep Cartoon Painting India Saffron Painting India Saffron Donald Trump’s immigration ban Donald Trump’s immigration ban Time to straighten up Time to straighten up                pic by TOI

Hindu

IBN IBN

Hindu

TOI

TOI

Hindu ALL_1_Theme_01A_24_2383617g

Hindu

Demonitisation Diaries Demonitisation Diaries                                                       by sify [caption id="attachment_97467" align="alignleft" width="621"]Humour with Latest Laws Humour with Latest Laws[/caption]

Hindu Hindu

Alligator vs Litigator Alligator vs Litigator Belts are for Dogs Belts are for Dogs America First Walk Your own Talk State of JudiciaryState of Judiciary by Sandeep Adhwaryu of TOI

TOI

Let Justice Be Let Justice Be

TOI

UIDAI Leaks UIDAI Leaks Job Hazards NPA Hurts Public Sector Banks NPA Hurts Public Sector Banks

...as an eminent lawyer you ought to know that your action tantamount to, under Section B, sub-section G.VIX, read along with I.P.C. (A) XI (B), notwithstanding...                                        TOI

Hindu

Hindu

Pakistan Democracy Pakistan Democracy

Hindu

TOI

Hindu Hindu

TOI

TOI Delivery Boy Delivery Boy                    by Satish Pic by Hindu Women Empowerment and Sports Women Empowerment and Sports Soaring of Oil Prices pic by indiaone Hindu

Hindu

TOI

TOI Humour @ Latest Laws Achhey Din Humour @ Latest Laws: Achhey Din TOI TOI

Hindu

TOI

Hindu Hindu Four Pillars of Democracy Four Pillars of Democracy             by Satish Hindu Hindu
Download our App
ios icon
android icon
 
 
 

Check Also

Ad Hoc and Institutional Arbitration By Jyotsana Uplavdiya

Senior Advocate criticizes Govt. for not playing “proactive role” in making India an International Arbitration Hub

March 23,2019: Senior Advocate Arvind Datar has stated that,”Government is not playing a “proactive role” in making India an international arbitration hub”. Senior Advovate Arvind Datar, is also Director of Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (NPAC) stated that though there are thousands of domestic arbitration cases in India, most public ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *