Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.46 seconds)
Hdfc Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur And Anr. on 5 July, 2007
cites
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 161 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 163 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal , the claim was made under Section 166 on behalf of the deceased employee driver of the owner of the car upon the negligence of the driver of the car. In that case there was no special contract covering the deceased driver who was driving along with his companion. It was observed that though the M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation and summary procedure alone may be followed by a Tribunal in dealing with a claim, the contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. Consequently, when a car belonging to an owner and driven by the driver employed by the insured meets with an accident, the primary liability is that of the driver. Hence, the owner becomes vicariously liable to compensate the victim. That vicarious liability of the owner is indemnified by the insurance company. Under Section 166 of the M.V. Act the third party is entitled to show the negligence of the driver and consequently the owner's vicarious liability and claim indemnity from the insurance company. Upon considering the necessity for insurance against third party risk under Section 146 of the M.V. Act, as well as the ambit of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, it has been held in para 11 of the judgment that compulsory cover required under Section 146 is only for liabilities relating to the person and property of third parties. Consequently, it has been held that the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner for the death of one of his employees who was the driver of the vehicle when the liability does not arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently, it was held that except for third parties, the third party cover would not extend to any person, and the insurance company cannot be made automatically liable to cover the driver of a vehicle.