Bombay HC: Accident' Includes Sudden Slipping, Involvement Of Another Vehicle Not Necessary For Claiming Compensation

Admittedly at the time of accident, the bike was insured with the Insurance company and the insurance of pillion rider was covered in the said insurance policy. The term accident is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Lexis Nexis, “Accident” means, ‘a sudden unforeseen or unexpected event causing harm to a person. In my view, accident includes, collision, over turning or slipping. It is not necessary to have involvement of other vehicle to cause an accident like in present case. Admittedly, the deceased was going on motorcycle and her saree got entangled in the rear wheel of the motorcycle and she fell on the road. It shows that, the death of the deceased was an accident. At the time of accident, the motorcycle was insured with respondent /Insurance Company. The accident caused due to use of the motorcycle, hence Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Though four persons were travelling on the bike, but it has come on record that the deceased, her husband and their two minor children around three years of age were travelling with them, so it cannot be considered as breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1370 OF 2019

 Aditya Ramchandra Patil Vs  Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

 DATED : 23 rd  JULY, 2025.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:35275.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether motor accident claim tribunal can ascertain which vehicle was involved in the accident on the basis of police papers?

The aforesaid pronouncements indicate that the legal position has crystallized to the effect that the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the M.V. Act, 1988, is not to be hidebound by the strict rules of procedure and evidence. In the light of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal, it is enjoined to take a holistic view of the matter, and, on the basis of the material placed before it, arrive at a justifiable conclusion as regards the involvement of the vehicle and negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Such a finding of involvement and negligence can, in a given case, be based on the report filed by the police under Section 173 of the Code, post investigation into the report of death or injury having been caused by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. There is no warrant to discard the investigation papers as untrustworthy. Often they reflect the contemporaneous state of affairs. {Para 12}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1072 of 2007

Decided On: 04.12.2021

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vajarabai Narayan Sadaram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.J. Jamadar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3952/2021.

Print Page

Whether Insurance Company Liable If Ambulance Meets An Accident And Patient Being Shifted For Better Treatment Succumbs To His Ailment?

  There is no dispute that the deceased was

suffering from jaundice and the cause of death as

mentioned in the FSL report was on account of

Jaundice. If the deceased was carried to provide him

with better treatment, if he had treated at Mangalore

his ailment could have been cured and walked out of

the hospital, jaundice is not a fatal ailment, better

treatment is available at higher medical centers like

Mangalore and for that reason, he was being carried

in an Ambulance. The driver though knew that he is

carrying a patient, did not take precaution while

driving, instead, he negligently caused the accident,

due to the impact, the ailment of the deceased was

aggravated and the patient died in the hospital.

Hence, there is nexus to accident and cause of death

of the deceased, but the percentage may vary and

therefore, there is no sound argument on behalf of

the insurance company. Hence, the ground urged for

dismissal of claim cannot be supported with. {Para 10}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

MFA NO.4286 OF 2014 (MV)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs MENPA MAISTRY S/O PAJIA MAISTRY

BEFORE

 MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

DATED: 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

Print Page

Whether the police can register an offence against a child nine year old in respect of accident?

 Central Government Act

Section 83 in The Indian Penal Code

83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

 Misconception or ignorance of law is not an excuse, much less, for a police officer and in the peculiar facts, more so, having regard to the fact that the child was only 9 years of age. This action of the police i.e. of registration of FIR, has resulted in traumatizing a 9 year old boy. Despite Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, the police have proceeded to register the FIR as against the petitioner’s son, a minor aged 9 years, at the behest of the respondent No.3. The action reflects complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer whilst registering the offence. {Para 15}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3062 OF 2022; 

`AK’ Vs State of Maharashtra

Coram: REVATI MOHITE DERE; J., S. M. MODAK, J.

Dated: 20th OCTOBER 2022

Print Page

Whether insurer is bound to prove conclusively that intimation of cancellation of policy reached to insured prior to accident

 A period of one week from the date of dispatch can safely be adopted as the time necessary to serve the letter in the ordinary course after which the intimation is presumed to have been served on the addressee. The period is so fixed in the absence of any provision to the contrary for the limited purpose of the cases of this nature to avoid disputes as to the date of receipt of the intimation. The insured in some cases may try to evade the service of notice and the letter would be returned with postal remarks like 'addressee left', 'house locked', 'insufficient address' etc. The burden is on the addressee to rebut the presumption by conclusive evidence that he did not really receive the letter and it is not a case of deliberate avoidance. The burden is not on the insurer to establish conclusively that the intimation of cancellation of insurance coverage was in fact served on the insured or the registering authority. The judgment in M.A.C.A. No. 2471/2015 to the effect that it is the obligation of the insurer to establish the service of the intimation on the addressee is hereby overruled. Needless to say that no liability can be fastened on the insurer for any compensation payable in respect of an accident that occurs after the service of the intimation aforesaid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

M.A.C.A. No. 2017 of 2013

Decided On: 31.10.2018

 Prasanna  Vs.  Kabeer

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Chitambaresh, P.B. Suresh Kumar and Sathish Ninan, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 Kerala 82

Print Page

Whether court should grant compensation if person authorized to drive vehicle dies due to accident?

Further, this Court also finds that although the plea that the deceased would enter into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle in the circumstances, when he is authorized to drive the vehicle, was not taken by the Insurance Company before the learned court below, but, certainly, there is no doubt, that the liability under the policy would be governed by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it was specifically pleaded by the Insurance Company that the liability would be governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. This Court finds that the point regarding extent of liability of the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased enters into the shoes of the owner, is based on facts as narrated by the claimants and supported by the owner of the vehicle. It is the case of the claimants as well as the owner of the vehicle that the deceased was authorized to driver the vehicle and no additional evidence on this point is required to be adduced by the parties and the specific plea of the appellant insurance company that the liability under such circumstances would at most be to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs can be considered being a point of law on the facts admitted and projected by the claimants themselves.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A. No. 57 of 2012

Decided On: 25.04.2019

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vs.  Shakuntala Ganeriwal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Print Page

Whether Death By Mosquito Bite is Covered Under Death By Accident?

The present appeal raises an interesting question of law. The Court is tasked with determining whether a death due to malaria occasioned by a mosquito bite in Mozambique, constituted a death due to accident. 

As the law of insurance has developed, there has been a nuanced understanding of the distinction between an accident and a disease which is contracted in the natural course of human events in determining whether a policy of accident insurance would cover a disease. At one end of the spectrum is the theory that an accident postulates a mishap or an untoward happening, something which is unexpected and unforeseen. This understanding of what is an accident indicates that something which arises in the natural course of things is not an accident. This is the basis for holding that a disease may not fall for classification as an accident, when it is caused by a bodily infirmity or a condition. A person who suffers from flu or a viral fever cannot say that it is an accident. Of course, there is an element of chance or probability in contracting any illness. Even when viral disease has proliferated in an area, every individual may not suffer from it. Getting a bout of flu or a viral illness may be a matter of chance. But a person who gets the flu cannot be described as having suffered an accident: the flu was transmitted in the natural course of things. To be bitten by a mosquito and be imbued with a malarial parasite does involve an element of chance. But the disease which is caused as a result of the insect bite in the natural course of events cannot be regarded as an accident. Particularly, when the disease is caused in an area which is malaria prone. On the other hand, there may well be instances where a bodily condition from which an individual suffers may be the direct consequence of an accident. A motor car accident may, for instance, result in bodily injuries, the consequence of which is death or disability which may fall within the cover of a policy of accident insurance. Hence, it has been postulated that where a disease is caused or transmitted in the natural course of events, it would not be covered by the definition of an accident. However, in a given case or circumstance, the affliction or bodily condition may be regarded as an accident where its cause or course of transmission is unexpected and unforeseen.

29. Recently, in Gloria Wells v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company17, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, dealt with a case where the question of law before the court was whether death caused by a bite of a mosquito carrying West Nile Encephalitis virus in Texas was covered under an accidental death insurance policy. The Court while remanding the case to the lower court on the disputed issue of facts, observed that the determinate, single act of a mosquito bite was not incidental to a body process and the mosquito, an external force produced an unforeseen result. However, this may be distinguished from the facts in the present case. Malaria is most commonly transmitted to humans through malaria virus infested mosquito bites, and when a virus is contracted through normal means brought about by everyday life it cannot be deemed to be an unexpected or unforeseen accident.

30. In a policy of insurance which covers death due to accident, the peril insured against is an accident: an untoward happening or occurrence which is unforeseen and unexpected in the normal course of human events. The death of the insured in the present case was caused by encephalitis malaria. The claim under the policy is founded on the hypothesis that there is an element of uncertainty about whether or when a person would be the victim of a mosquito bite which is a carrier of a vector-borne disease. The submission is that being bitten by a mosquito is an unforeseen eventuality and should be regarded as an accident. We do not agree with this submission. The insured was based in Mozambique. According to the World Health Organization's World Malaria Report 2018, Mozambique, with a population of 29.6 million people, accounts for 5% of cases of malaria globally. It is also on record that one out of three people in Mozambique is afflicted with malaria. In light of these statistics, the illness of encephalitis malaria through a mosquito bite cannot be considered as an accident. It was neither unexpected nor unforeseen. It was not a peril insured against in the policy of accident insurance.

31. We are hence of the view that the interpretation placed on the terms of the insurance policy was manifestly incorrect and that the impugned order of the National Commission is unsustainable

In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)

Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  Mousumi Bhattacharjee 

Civil Appeal No 2614 of 2019

Decided on March 26, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 419

Print Page

Whether registered owner of vehicle can be held liable for accident even if vehicle is transferred by him?

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. To hold otherwise would be to
defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act.
Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate
the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present
case, the first respondent was the “owner” of the
vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning
of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation
stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was
uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a
misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in
Reshma (2015)3 SCC 679 and Purnya Kala Devi
(2014) 14 SCC 142.
14. The submission of the petitioner is that a failure to
intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under
Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of
the vehicle. In T.V. Jose (2001)8 SCC 748, this Court
observed that there can be transfer of title by payment
of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the
purposes of the Act, the person whose name is
reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is
the owner. The owner within the meaning of Section
2(30) is liable to compensate. The mandate of the law
must be fulfilled.”
9. The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:-

“Even though in law there would be a transfer of
ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not
absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in
RTO records, from liability to a third person … … …
Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not
mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his
liability to a third person. So long as his name
continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third
person.” 3
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11369 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Civil)No.27296 of 2018)

PRAKASH CHAND DAGA  Vs SAVETA SHARMA & ORS.

Dated:December 14, 2018.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 66,(2019) 2 SCC 747,2019(4) MHLJ 514

Print Page

Supreme Court: Basic principles for ascertaining compensation in case of permanent or temporary disability arising out of accident

 In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and

(v) Loss of expectation of life.

In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/1423/2011 : 2011 (12) SCALE 658, this Court held:

The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2217 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7739 of 2017)

Decided On: 06.03.2018

 Jagdish Vs.  Mohan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 4 SCC 571

Print Page

Whether minor driving motor cycle without licence is entitled to get compensation in case of accident?

 Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to
be noted that in a vehicular accident between the Motorcycle
No.GJ 2 AA 5546, which at the relevant time was being driven
by the original injured claimant-minor and one Jeep No.GJ 2 R
3829, driver of the Motorcycle-original injured claimant
sustained permanent partial disability to the extent of 7%. It
is also required to be noted that as such on appreciation of
evidence, the learned tribunal has held the driver of the Jeep
involved in the accident sole negligent in the accident. Under
the circumstances and normally once the driver of the
offending vehicle is held to be sole negligent for the accident
the original claimant is entitled to the compensation from the
driver-owner and the Insurer of the vehicle whose driver is held
to be sole negligent. As per settled proposition of law only that
much amount is required to be deducted and / or original
claimant is not entitled to the extent he is held contributory
negligent for the accident. However, in the present case, the
learned tribunal has deducted 70% i.e. 10% towards
negligence of the minor injured claimant and 60% towards
negligence of the father-owner of the Motorcycle permitting his
minor son to drive the Motorcycle though he was not holding
valid license to drive the Motorcycle. On the aforesaid ground
no amount of compensation could have been deducted and / or
denied to the original claimant, more particularly, when so far
as the accident is concerned the original injured claimant is
not held negligent / contributory negligent at all. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2029 of 2008

MINOR SHAKTISINH ZALA.
V
ZALA RANVIRSINH RANUBHA & 4.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 25/02/2016
Citation:2016(6) ALLMR(JOURNAL)7

Print Page

Whether government can be held liable For Accidents in Public Roads Since Road Tax Is Levied By It?

  It is a fact that motor vehicles are dangerous in nature by its

speed as well as by its working mechanism. Two wheelers cannot be

considered as a luxury now. Even small young families travelling upon

two wheelers is a common sight on the roads.           This single track

vehicles are highly pron to accident. Its dynamics of motion is highly

complicated. It is the vehicle of the poor as well as the rich, but at the

same time risk due to accident attached to the same is very high. Roads

are provided by the Government to ply the vehicles. There are different

kinds of motor vehicles including the motor bikes, where the owner

will be riding the same on the public roads provided by the

Government without any personal insurance coverage. Use and allied



aspects of a motor vehicle are covered by the Motor Vehicles Act. As

per the provision, personal injury coverage is not compulsory. Roads

to ply the vehicles are provided and maintained by the Government.

Under such a circumstance, there will be a welfare state liability for

the Government, which will partially eclipse the maxim volunti non fit

injuria and fault liability theory. Liability of the Government can be

made limited. But the Government cannot elude from its limited

liability in a case of accident occurring in a public road, where road tax

is levied by the Government. Government can either shoulder it by

itself or can fasten upon the authorised insurance company by

statutorily making the company liable over and above the liability of

the insured when they indemnify i.e., at the moment they are entering

into an insurance contract as required under Chapter XI of the Motor

Vehicles Act, they should be made statutorily liable for the welfare state

liability. An appropriate change in the statute that will make the

Government/the insurer liable for a fixed sum, as in the case of Section

140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, payable to the owner in case of

injury/death is the need of the day.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

    

     FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

                    MACA.No. 2102 of 2013 
                    



          L.MINI, 
Vs
      GIREESHKUMAR,
        PRESENT:

            MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
                                &
       MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

Print Page

Whether owner is entitled to claim damages for vehicle involved in accident before civil court?

 In all the aforesaid decisions, it is clearly stated that the owner is entitled to claim damages for the vehicle involved in the accident. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to award compensation after the amended provisions of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act which have come into force after the motor vehicle accident of 1988 as there is express bar of entertaining by civil court and the civil court cannot entertain a claim in respect of damage caused to the vehicle involved in the accident. The owner has been conferred with a right of presenting an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Act in respect of damages. The only thing that has to be decided is whether computation can be made in respect of business loss, which is part of the policy of insurance and whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction under the head - Damages of compensation. It is clear from the principles laid down by the decisions rendered by the English Courts that the loss occasioned due to non-availability of the vehicle under repair can be awarded during the period of repair. It is not stated in those decisions that the entire business loss of income can be entertained or awarded. What is contemplated under the law is that the loss of income sustained during the period of vehicle under repair is an incidental loss, which resulted due to the damages to the vehicle, and it can be awarded and the Tribunal alone can entertain such a thing. Section 166 mentioned about the application to be made for compensation. Section 165 says that compensation can be claimed for damages to any property of a third party so arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Does it cover the loss of incidental income of the owner? It must be held that loss of incidental income due to non-availability of vehicle, which is under repairs, is covered. That has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation. It cannot be stated that the incidental loss sustained by the owner due to the damage to the vehicle and due to non-availability of the vehicle cannot be taken into consideration. The Court has to take into consideration about the ousting of Civil Court's jurisdiction for claiming compensation in respect of damages to any property. The incidental loss of income has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation for damages to the property. The single Judge of this Court has rightly observed that there cannot be two forums for claiming compensation. The incidental loss of income is part of the damages to be awarded by way of compensation. The same view has been taken by the English Courts. The method that has to be adopted is to calculate the loss of income due to non-availability of the vehicle. If the vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company, it is liable to pay damages which inclusive of incidental loss of income due to non-availability of the vehicle. The incidental loss of income differs from business loss. The business loss has to be arrived at after taking into consideration of the non-availability of the vehicle on the particular period and its availability after repairs. We are of considered view that just compensation has to be arrived at by calculating the compensation towards damages including the incidental loss occasioned during the period of non-availability of the vehicle. On a consideration of the entire law, we are of the view that the owner of the vehicle is entitled to claim incidental loss of income under the head Damages caused to the vehicle before the Tribunal and the civil court has no jurisdiction.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1242 of 1993

Decided On: 30.12.2003

Appellants: G. Md. Masoom
Vs.
Respondent: S.K. Khader Vali and Anr.

Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act Case

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B. Prakash Rao and CH. S.R.K. Prasad, JJ.

Citation:2004(2) T A C 433 AP

Print Page

Whether negligence in accident case can be proved by production of Police charge-sheet?

As regards the finding regarding negligence also, as rightly

pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the production of

Police charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence. A

Division Bench of this Court in Pazhaniammal's case (2011(3) KLT

648) has addressed that question and has held as follows in paragraphs


7 and 8:

        "As a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of

        the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of

        negligence for the purpose of a claim under S.166 of the Motor

        Vehicles Act. A system cannot feed itself on a regular diet of

        distrust of the police. Prima facie, charge sheet filed by a

        police officer after due investigation can be accepted as

        evidence of negligence against the indictee. If any one of the

        parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on

        such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence is adduced

        by any party, in a case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunals

        should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral

        evidence and in such a case the charge sheet will pale into

        insignificance and the dispute will have to be decided on the

        basis of the evidence. In all other cases such charge sheet can

        be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim

        under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We mean to say that on

        production of such charge sheet the shifting of burden must

        take place. It is not as though we are not conscious of the

        dangers and pit falls involved in such an approach. But we feel

        that adoption and recognition of such practice would help to

        reduce the length of the long queue for justice before the

        Tribunals. The judicial recognition of the practice will help the


       Tribunals to ensure the optimum use of judicial time at their

       disposal for productive ventures. We do not intend to say that

       collusive charge sheets need be accepted. Wherever on the

       facts of a given case the Tribunals feel that the police charge

       sheet does not satisfy their judicial conscience, the Tribunals

       can record that the charge sheet cannot be accepted and can call

       upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of the

       accident and the alleged negligence. In such a case, the issue of

       negligence must be decided on the other evidence, ignoring the

       charge sheet."



Herein, through P.W.1, the charge sheet has been marked as Ext.A3.

The same, therefore, is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence.

The onus of proof has been shifted to the insurance company and as

already found above, it is recorded in the "B" diary, that the third

respondent insurance company reported that there is no further

evidence.  Therefore,    the finding on negligence has been rightly

rendered by the Tribunal. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

           MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
                                   &
             MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

        WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2015

                       MACA.No. 1075 of 2009 ( )
          
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.Vs SHOBHANA OMANAKUTTAN,
       

Print Page

Whether court can give finding in respect of happening of accident and for reaching conclusion about negligence on the basis of FIR or Police papers?

 It is thus clear that in proceedings under the MV Act, where
procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of
pleading or evidence. Document having some probative value, the
genuineness of which is not in doubt can be looked into by the Tribunal
for getting preponderance of probable versions. As such, it is by now well
settled that even FIR or Police papers, when made part of claim petition
can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of theaccident and for reaching conclusion about negligence. In other words,
evidence of claimants is required to be examined in broader probabilities
of their case, in order to achieve object of social welfare legislation. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
 AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

 First Appeal No. 257 of 2010

Ashabai w/o. Kalyan Kothi,
 versus
 Baban s/o. Santosh Bidgar,
 CORAM : A.M. BADAR, J.
Date of pronouncing the
 judgment : 5th December 2015.

Print Page

Caselaw in the case of an accident arising out of composite negligence

The law in the case of an accident arising out of composite
negligence has been considered by a 3 Judges’ bench of this Court in
Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (AIR 2015 SC 2261)
wherein following propositions have been laid down :
“(i) In the case of composite negligence,
plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one
of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire
compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is
joint and several.
(ii) In the case of composite negligence,
apportionment of compensation between two tort
feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not
permissible. He can recover at his option whole
damages from any of them.
(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been
impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to
the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of
composite negligence of the drivers. However,
determination of the extent of negligence between
the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their
inter se liability so that one may recover the sum
from the other after making whole of payment to
the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied
the liability of the other. In case both of them have
been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of
their negligence has been determined by the
court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor
can recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.
(iv) It would not be appropriate for the
court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite
negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the
absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors.
In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should
be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint
tort feasor in independent proceedings after
passing of the decree or award.”
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8879 OF 2015
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.24685/2013]
Kamlesh & Ors. … Appellants
Vs.
Attar Singh & Ors. … Respondents
Dated;October 27, 2015

Print Page

Whether ex gratia payment made to widow of person died in accident can be deducted from compensation payable to her?

 In view of above, this issue is no longer res integra. We hold that the amount which is payable to the applicant under ex-gratia payment could not have been reduced by deducting the amount paid under Workmen s Compensation Act. Applicant is entitled to get the difference of the amount. Accordingly, respondents are directed to release the deducted amount of Rs. 1, 78, 940/- to the applicant within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We are not inclined to grant any interest in this case because applicant has herself approached the court with some delay, therefore, she would not be entitled to get any interest.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Smt. Beghmati vs The General Manager on 25 November, 2010

Print Page

Whether second wife of person who died in accident can claim compensation?

Therefore, in the instant case, on facts it is established that the deceased was living with the second wife; and the second wife and children were depending solely on the income of the deceased. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 of the 1988 Act, it cannot be said that the second wife is not entitled to any maintenance or that she has to be excluded from the compensation payable by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view having regard to the intention of the legislature as reflected in Section 168 of the 1988 Act, where it is a legal representative of the deceased and not a legal heir, who is entitled to maintain a petition and when the definition of the term 'legal representative' includes intermeddler, the second wife, as she would be intermeddling with the estate of the deceased by virtue of the fact that she was living with him at the time of his death would be entitled to maintain a petition. She also would be entitled to compensation, as a dependant, as she was depending on him for her living and sustained loss on account of his death. At the same time the first wife, who had been living separately, for whatever reason and even if she was not dependent on the deceased, would be entitled to compensation, as a legally wedded wife and also as a person entitled to the estate of the deceased. Similarly, the daughter of the second wife, though illegitimate, by virtue of Section 16(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, is to be treated as legitimate child. She would be entitled to a share in the estate of the father as class-I heir and the petition filed by her can neither be dismissed nor she can be denied the compensation. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the petition filed by the second wife is not maintainable is not correct and therefore, it has to be set aside. The second wife, as dependent on the deceased and an intermeddler of his estate and who has sustained loss is entitled to compensation along with the first wife and her own daughter. Therefore all of them are entitled to compensation. 

Equivalent Citation: 2015(1) AKR 168, 2015(1)KCCR353,AIR 2015(NOC)687 KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

MFA Nos. 24051 and 24165/2012 and MFA No. 24186/2012 (MV)

Decided On: 25.02.2014

Appellants: Lalita
Vs.
Respondent: M.R. Sunilkumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Print Page

Guidelines for calculation of compensation in case of accident by multiple vehicles

In the instant matter the main question which arose for consideration was, whether it is open to a claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasors, particularly when in accident caused by composite negligence of drivers of trailor-truck and bus has been found to 2/3rd and 1/3rd extent respectively.

The present was a case of composite negligence where injuries were caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them at appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis-à-vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent defendant.

The following was observed and held:

(i)    In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. 

(ii)    In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. 

(iii)    In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.

(iv)    It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the

absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award. 

Supreme Court of India

Khenyei vs New India Assurnace Co.Ltd.& Ors on 7 May, 2015

Bench: H.L. Dattu, S.A. Bobde, Arun Mishra

Print Page

Whether liability to pay compensation in case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors is joint and several?

The Apex Court has observed that in a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them at appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis a vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent defendant.

Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No.4244 Of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.14015/2010]

Dated;May 07, 2015.
Citation:2016(2) MHLJ514

Print Page

Whether negligence in accident depends upon size of vehicle?

Mr. Thakkar, the learned advocate as a last resort also tried to impress upon me that having regard to the size of the two vehicles, the Tribunal ought to have held that the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep cannot exceed 40%.

In my opinion the aforesaid contention is also devoid of any merit inasmuch as the negligence in the accident does not depend upon the size of the vehicle. In this case. the Tribunal below on materials on record has specifically arrived at a conclusion that it was the driver of the jeep concerned who was driving the vehicle negligently and as such was found to be 90% negligent. I do not propose to disturb such finding of fact based on evidence on record. Thus, the additional point advanced by Mr. Thakkar is of no avail to his client.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1466 of 2008

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD....Appellant(s)
Versus
KANKUBEN MAFABHAI ZINABHAI PATNI & 
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
Date : 02/09/2014
Citation; 2015(2) ALLMR(JOURNAL)91

Print Page