About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Friday, April 25, 2008

SC ruling on third party insurance claims

New Delhi (PTI): Family members of a vehicle owner killed in a road accident are not entitled to any third party insurance compensation, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation to the dependent family members of the vehicle owner only if the later had taken a specific personal accident policy, a bench of Justices S B Sinha and V S Sirpurkar said while upholding an appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Ltd.
The apex court clarified that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act which entitles family members of an accident victim to claim compensation under "third party" claim would not be available to the family members of the owner who dies in a mishap.
The bench passed the ruling while setting aside a direction of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to the insurance company to pay compensation to the family of one Janak Raj who died while riding a motorcycle.
Interpreting Section 163-A of the Act, the apex court said under the proviso the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay the victim/dependents in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.
Understandably, if the offending vehicle is insured for third party, the insurance company would indemnify the compensation amount on behalf of the insured owner.
"The liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janakraj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act,"the bench observed.
The Bench quashed the Tribunal's direction for awarding compensation to the the family of Janakraj.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
www.hindu.com

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment