Insurance claims not restricted to third party in motor accidents: SC

Economic Times

a day ago

Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Supreme Court held that motor vehicle insurance policy holders can claim compensation and referred the issue of claims against injury or death to the policyholder themselves in a road accident to a larger bench, saying that such cases have contradict judgements in the past.The SC, while hearing the compensation plea of a minor girl, who lost both her parents in a car accident while her father was driving, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act could be invoked for such a claim, adding that it is a special provision which overrides not only all the provisions of the Act but also any other law in force for the time being.The minor was provided with the compensation by the insurance company for the death of her mother but not for her father as he was himself the insured party.The bench said: "... a claim under section 163A, as per the words employed in the provision, according to us covers every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; without any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor accident. This would also take in the liability with respect to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under section 163A dehors the statutory liability under section 147 or the contractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance policy".The insurance company, however, had held that the petitioner, having succeeded to the estate of the owner of the vehicle who died in the accident cannot at the same time be the person who has the liability and is the recipient of the compensation."It would override the provisions under sections 147 & 149 along with the other provisions of the Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum. This according to us is the intention of incorporating the non-obstante clause under Section 163A providing for no-fault liability claims , the compensation for which is restricted to the structured formula under the IInd Schedule. It is a beneficial piece of legislation brought in, keeping in mind the enhanced chances of an accident, resulting from the prevalence of vehicles in the overcrowded roads of today. It was a social security scheme, brought about considering the need for a more comprehensive scheme of 'no-fault' liability for reasons of the ever-increasing instances of motor vehicle accidents and the difficulty in proving rash and negligent driving," the bench said.(With TOI inputs)