Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court held that the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act will not be maintainable if the accident is caused by the rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver himself and in which no other vehicle is involved.
In the present case, that is National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. AshalataBhowmik, the high Court upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The tribunal held that the deceased was not a third party and the accident had occurred due to the rash driving of the offending vehicle. The High Court ordered that the compensation must be paid to the rider and that the order should not be treated as a precedent. It further noted that the clause of indemnification in the insurance contract extended to only Rupees two lakhs.
The bench observed that the legal representatives of the deceased cannot claim the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The bench referred to a case, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. JhumaSaha, and held that the accident has occurred due to the rash driving of the vehicle by the deceased and he was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle making him solely responsible for the accident. Therefore, the claim under Motor Vehicles Act is thus not maintainable but he can make the insurance company to pay for the same.
The bench further set aside the compensation awarded and observed that since the indemnification clause provides for limitation of Rupees 2 lakhs under the insurance contract, then the legal representatives of the deceased must be entitled to that amount only.
86540
103860
630
114
59824