Motor Accident Claims : 2018 Annual Round Up

This is a compilation of major judgments of 2018 in the field of motor accident claims compensation.Owner as per RTO records liable for accident, if transfer is not recordedIn Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar and others, the SC reiterated the legal position that it is the registered owner of the vehicle as per RTO records who is liable for accident caused by the vehicle. Therefore, even if the ownership of vehicle is transferred, if the transfer is not recorded in the RTO records, the original owner will continue to be liable.Because, owner, as per Section 2(30) of the MV Act, is the registered owner. "The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority", observed the SC.Insurer will be absolved if transport vehicle had no permitThe SC held that if a transport vehicle plying without permit gets involved in an accident, the insurer will not be liable, as absence of permit is a statutory breach( Amrit Paul Singh and anothers v TATA AIG General Insurance)Stationary vehicle can also cause accidentTo incur liability under MV Act, it is not necessary that the vehicle was moving. As per Section 165 of the Act, to give rise to a claim for compensation, the accident need to "arise out of the use of the vehicle". “The word “use” has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary”, observed the Supreme Court, while sustaining the claim in relation to accident caused by a stationary tractor.In this case, the battery of the tractor was used to power a blasting machine in a field. During the blasting operation, a rock fell on a passer by, causing his death. The SC held that the accident had causal link with "use of vehicle", and held the MACT claim to be maintainable.(Kalim Khan and others v Fimidabee and others)Term of third party insurance raised as 3 years for four wheelers and 5 years for two wheelers for vehicles sold from Sep 1On July 20, the Supreme Court ordered that third party insurance coverage of three years for cars and five years for two wheelers should be mandatory for all vehicles sold from September 1.The direction was on the basis of decisions taken by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, headed by former SC judge Justice K. S Radhakrishnan. The bench noted that in a meeting held by Committee on 26th March, 2018, it was recorded that there are about 18 crore vehicles plying on the road and only about 6 crore vehicles have the mandatory third party cover, which meant that 66% of the vehicles were plying without third party insurance (S Rajaseekaran v Union of India and others)On August 28, IRDA issued a circular, putting in effect the SC direction.Doctrine of "pay and recover" holds the field in cases of breach of policy conditionsThe SC held that in cases of breach of statutory conditions of policy, the insurer will have to first pay compensation to the claimant and can recover the amount later from the insured owner. The insurer cannot seek absolute exoneration.The SC set aside the HC judgment, which had quashed the Tribunal direction to the insurer to "pay and recover" in a case where the driver of the offending vehicle was found to have no driving license. The HC completely exonerated the insurer ,relying on the SC decision in National Insurance Co Ltd v Parvathneni. In Parvathneni, the SC had referred to larger bench the issue whether directions to "pay and recover" could be given under Article 142 of the Constitution, in cases where insurer had no liability.In the present case, the SC held that the questions raised in Parvathneni was no attracted. Because, this was a case of breach of policy condition, and not a case where policy did not cover the accident.(Shamana and another vs The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance)Disabled victim must be compensated for inability to lead full lifeIn a case relating to compensation claim for disability caused by accident, the SC held : "In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the nonpecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries"In this case, the SC accepted the statement given by the employer regarding the salary paid to the victim. The HC was criticised for taking a lower amount than the figure stated by the employer(Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dhukre v Pratap Son of Zhamnappa Lamzane and another)Claim petition not maintainable for self-accidentThe Supreme Court reiterated that when an...

Motor Accident Claims : 2018 Annual Round Up

Manu Sebastian

Tags