Motor Vehicles Act

MVA S. 163-A, S. 147 – Owner of vehicle died in accident – No third party involved – Insurance company not liable -The provisions of the Act, therefore, provide for two types of insurance — one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. Whereas the insurance company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident; in case involving owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property. New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi (SC)

•  MVA S. 149(1) –  Pay and Recover –  Rights of the third party is statutorily protected as per sub-section(1) of Section 149 of the M.V.Act

MVA S. 163-A, S. 147 – Owner of vehicle died in accident – No third party involved – Insurance company not liable -The provisions of the Act, therefore, provide for two types of insurance — one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. Whereas the insurance company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident; in case involving owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property. New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi (SC)

• Student – Aged 23 years  - Engineering graduate pursuing an MBA degree – Classmates were gainfully employed – Deceased would have drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates – Monthly income taken as Rs. 30,000/-­. ((2022-4)208 PLR 116 , 2022 SCeJ 1147

• Once the court comes to the conclusion that the case is one of composite negligence, damages cannot be apportioned. The liability in the case of composite negligence normally should not be apportioned, as both the wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. The claimant is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from all or any of the joint tortfeasors. It is the choice of the petitioner either to claim compensation from both the tortfeasors or any of them. Tentativeness for the purpose of contribution to joint tortfeasors does not at all affect the right of the petitioner to recover the full damages

•  In the case of a breach of policy, the insurer is required to establish its defense with regard to breach of policy conditions. Not only does it have to establish there is a breach of policy, but such breach has to be so fundamental that it puts an end to the contract and that such breach had caused the accident. No evidence led to prove that the breach in the form of carrying some excess passengers was so fundamental in nature that it resulted in causing the accident and thus putting an end to the policy itself. The insurance company is liable

• .The deceased was not driving but traveling in the vehicle. It is clear that there was no act or omission on the part of the deceased to contribute to the said accident. It is not a case of contributory negligence. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the case is one of composite negligence , damages cannot be apportioned. The claimant is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from all or any of the joint tortfeasors. It is the choice of the petitioner either to claim compensation from both the tortfeasors or any of them

• DIVISIONAL MANAGER,  NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD  v. HEM LATA , (2023-2)210 PLRIJ 009 (Bom.)

Whether an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could be entertained on deposit of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) or 50% of the amount 2 awarded, whichever is less and whether the Courts could insist for deposit of amount which is higher than the statutory prescribed amount as a condition precedent for entertaining such an appeal?