Claim U/s 163A Of MV Act Not Maintainable Against Owner/Insurer Without Third-Party Involvement When Injured Was Driving The Vehicle

Case: The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. A.C.Jagadeesann & Anr.

Coram: Justice P.T. Asha

Case No: C.M.A.No.2638 of 2019 and CM.P.No.12817 of 2019

Court Observation: “The tenor and purport of the above Judgment is the principle of ‘No Fault Liability” obviously implies that the injury or death or the claimant is the result of the involvement of a third party with the claimant being an innocent by stander and the accident has occurred out of no fault of his own”

“Whether the appellant Insurance Company is liable to compensate the 1st respondent [Father] for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which was caused by him without any third-party intervention?.”

“…in order to claim compensation, the recipient had to be a third party. If the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle or if the vehicle had been driven by another, he would step into the shoes of the owner and therefore, from a reading of Section 163A, it is clear that the legal representative of the deceased is not entitled to compensation.”

“…It only states that in order to claim compensation under Section 163A, a claim cannot be made if the victim himself is the owner of the vehicle which has caused the accident without any third-party intervention.”

“… Section 163A was never intended to provide relief to those who suffered in a road accident not because of the negligence of another person making use of a motor vehicle, but only on account of their own rash, negligent or imprudent act resulting in death or personal injury to them”

“The scheme of the Act contemplates 4 players – the victim, the driver of the offending vehicle, owner of the offending vehicle and lastly, its insurer. In any accident which results in any damage to a person or property the person who is primarily at fault is the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident. Once, the fault is fixed on the driver, the owner of the vehicle becomes vicariously liable…Thereafter, if the vehicle possesses a valid insurance then the insurer is bound to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, considering the object of the Act and the judicial pronouncements, it is clear that a person claiming compensation under the “No-Fault Liability” has to first establish a third party involvement in the mishap”

Previous Posts

Avoid Shortcut Approach In Judgments; Courts Must Adjudicate All Issues: Supreme Court

Framing Of Charge- Probative Value Of Materials Cannot Be Gone Into, Material Brought On Record By Prosecution To Be Accepted As True: Delhi HC

Short Term Permit For Extraction Of Minor Minerals Can Be Granted On Application Made To Competent Authority, Public Auction Not Required: Bombay HC

Bank Entitled To Proceed U/S 13 SARFAESI Act Notwithstanding That Debt Portfolio Was Assigned To It By NBFC: Bombay High Court

Acquittal of Delinquent Employee in a Criminal Case Does Not Debar Employer from Proceeding with Disciplinary Enquiry: Supreme Court

Mere Breach of Contract Cannot Give Rise to Criminal Prosecution for Cheating: Supreme Court

Order Allowing Review Petition Must Be Speaking & Reasoned Order As To What Was The Error Apparent On The Face Of Record: Supreme Court

Regional Labour Commissioner Cannot Exercise Adjudicatory Powers In Proceedings Under Sec. 33(1) Of Industrial Disputes Act: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Bars Charging Compound Interest Or Penal Interest On Any Borrower During Loan Moratorium; Refuses Moratorium Extension Download Judgement

Non Placing & Non Consideration Of Bail Order Vitiates Detaining Authority Subjective Decision: Tripura HC Sets Aside Detention Order

Preventive Detention Not Tenable When Other Penal Laws Sufficient to Deal with the Situation: Gujarat High Court

Writ Petition to Initiate In-House Inquiry against Judges Alleging Misconduct Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Keywords

MV Act, 163A Of MV Act