Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sushila Devi And Ors. vs Ibrahim And Anr. on 4 December, 1973
9. It is thus clear that, in an action commenced by a claimant for obtaining compensation from the driver and the owner of a motor vehicle on account of injury caused by an accident, an insurer is made a party so that liability for compensation, if any, can be fastened on the insurer. The insurer is also given a right to defend that action on the limited grounds that the policy of insurance has been cancelled or that there has been a breach of certain specified conditions of policy or that the policy is void on the ground of non-disclosure of a material fact. The question as to whether a policy of insurance covers or does not cover liability in excess of that fixed by the statute would not normally arise before the Tribunal unless it is made an issue. On the question as to who should plead and prove that the liability of the insurance company is in excess of the statutory limit fixed by Section 95(2)(b) of the Act, there is no doubt, a conflict of decisions of this court, as observed by the learned single judge. It is true that, while impleading the insurance company, the claimant is enabled by law to know the exact terms of the policy, even though he was not a party to the contract of indemnity. If the claimant, however, fails to inspect the policy of insurance and to allege that the insurance policy covers liability
in excess of the statutory limit, the matter should not, in our opinion, be decided on technicalities of pleadings, in view of the peculiar circumstances in which an insurer is impleaded in an action for compensation. From this point of view, both the decisions in Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim [1974] ACJ 150 (MP) and Rehana v. Abdul Majeed [1986] 60 Comp Cas 893 (MP), need reconsideration. In the interest of justice, without relying on the abstract doctrine of burden of proof, the insurance company should produce a true copy of the policy of the insurance. If the insurance company fails to do so, the Tribunal should direct the insurance company to produce the same. If the correctness of that copy is disputed by the claimant as a result of information obtained by him by inspecting the policy of insurance under Section 98(4) of the Act, the Tribunal should give a finding in that behalf. But, to enable the Tribunal to do justice, it is absolutely necessary that, in cases where a question arises as to whether the policy of insurance covers liability in excess of that fixed by the statute, the original policy or its true copy should be on record to put the matter beyond the pale of controversy. Looked at from this point of view, there is no reason why the appellate court should not, in the interest of justice, permit the insurance company to produce a copy of insurance policy at the appellate stage, if the Tribunal had not directed the insurance company to produce it. If its correctness is disputed by the claimant for cogent reasons, a finding in that behalf can be called for by the appellate court from the Tribunal. It cannot be lost sight of that production of insurance policy, in such cases, is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs Jugal Kishore & Others on 9 February, 1988
That is why the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore [1988] 63 Comp Cas 847 (SC) permitted the insurance company to file a copy of the , insurance policy before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the insurance company should not rely on the abstract doctrine of burden of proof and it was its duty to produce a copy of the policy. The following observations of the Supreme Court are pertinent (at page 853):
Section 94 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 110A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977
4. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to bear in mind that claims for compensation made before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are essentially claims arising out of accidents involving motor vehicles. The liability for payment of compensation in such cases is normally that of the driver of the vehicle and of the owner of the vehicle on the principle of vicarious liability. The parties to such a claim would ordinarily be the claimant, the driver and the owner of the vehicle. However, in course of time, it was found that with the increasing number of accidents on account of increasing use of motor vehicles, hardship was caused in a number of cases, where the person inflicting the injury was devoid of sufficient means to compensate the person affected. Compulsory insurance was, therefore, introduced by amending
the Act. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Minu B. Mehth v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan [1977] 47 Comp Cas 736 (SC) are pertinent (at page 746) :
Mangilal vs Parasram And Ors. on 3 November, 1969
5. Now, making a provision for compulsory insurance of a motor vehicle was, however, not sufficient to remove the hardship caused to a claimant. The insurance policy being a contract of indemnity between the insurer and the insured, ordinarily, an insurance company could not have been made a party in an application for compensation made by a claimant, because a claimant has no right under a contract of indemnity to which he was not a party, to obtain the benefit of insurance. With a view to meet this difficulty, Section 96(1) of the Act was enacted. That section provides that, when a judgment in respect of such a liability, as is required to be covered by a policy, is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then the insurer shall pay to the person entitled, the benefit of the decree as if he were a judgment-debtor. As observed by a Full Bench of this court in Mangilal v. Parasram [1972] 42 Comp Cas 102, Section 96 is a substantive provision which declares the liability of the insurer to pay the claimant directly. The statute has thus created a liability on the insurer to the injured person.
British India General Insurance Co., ... vs Captain Itbar Singh And Others on 11 May, 1959
8. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the right of the insurer to defend any action commenced before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is limited to the defences available to it under Section 96(2) of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court in British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh [1959] 29 Comp Cas (Ins.) 60, 66. "The statute has no doubt created a liability in the insurer to the injured person but the statute has also expressly confined the right to avoid that liability to certain grounds specified in it."
1