Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (3.42 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ramkhiladi vs The United India Insurance Company on 7 January, 2020
In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
and another reported in 2020 (2) SCC 550, the claimant is entitled to
claim compensation under the personal accident coverage before the
Tribunal. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant,
28/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.376 of 2019
the Tribunal without considering the legal position in proper perspective,
has mechanically dismissed the claim petition. Considering the other
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court further decides that the
parties are to be directed to bear their own costs and the above points are
answered accordingly.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009
Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one of
us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has
been categorically held that in a case where third party is
involved, the liability of the insurance company would be
unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where,
however, compensation is claimed for the death of the
owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of
insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the
claim of the claimant against the insurance company would
depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said
6/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.376 of 2019
decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to
have any application in respect of an accident wherein the
owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision
further held that the question is no longer res integra. The
liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of
the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also
a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the
deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of
Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the
ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the
facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased
was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He
borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The
deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the
motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said
vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the
shoes of the owner of the motorbike.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jhuma Saha And Ors on 16 January, 2007
13. Once it has been decided that the accident had taken
place due to the negligence of the deceased, the question which
arises for consideration is whether in such circumstances, the
second respondent insurance company is liable to pay
compensation to the claimants. The liability of the insurance
company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured
against the injured person, a third party or in respect of
damages to property. The insurer is not liable to indemnify the
insured if the accident had taken place where the insured
himself was driving the vehicle and due to his negligence
accident had taken place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Oriental Insruance Company Ltd., Vs. Jhuma Saha (Smt) and
Ors reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263 has held as follows: