In motor accidents, claims not restricted to third party in Supreme Court
protects a policyholder against claims made by a third party for damages due to the policyholder's actions, but what about a claim against injury/death of policyholder in an accident? Holding that family members of such a policyholder can also claim compensation, the
Supreme Court
has referred the issue to a larger bench given contradictory prior judgments on the matter.
While hearing the compensation plea of a minor girl who lost both parents in a car accident, the SC said section 163A of
Motor Vehicles Act
could be invoked for such a claim, as it is a special provision which overrides not only the rest of the Act but also any other law in force.
The minor had been awarded payout by the insurance company for the death of her mother but not for her father as he was himself the insured party. The insurance company held that the petitioner, legal heir of deceased vehicle owner, cannot at the same time be the liability holder and recipient of compensation.
The bench said: '… Section 163A is not restricted to third party claim; without any requirement of establishing negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of motor accident'.
'It would override Sections 147 & 149 along with other provisions of the Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy. This according to us is the intention of incorporating the non-obstante clause under Section 163A providing for
no-fault liability claims
'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
EC suspends 5 officials over Bengal ‘fake voters'
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken action in a case of alleged voter fraud in West Bengal, ordering the suspension of five officers and an FIR against them. The allegations include the fraudulent registration of voters using forged documents across two assembly constituencies. Those suspended include two West Bengal Civil Service officers serving as Electoral Registration Officers, and two Assistant Electoral Registration Officers from the Baruipur Purba and Moyna assembly constituencies. A data entry operator has also been named in the FIR, which alleges criminal misconduct. The ECI's investigation was prompted by a report from the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, highlighting alleged irregularities. Following the report, the ECI wrote to the state's Chief Secretary, directing immediate action. In its letter, the ECI emphasised the statutory duties of electoral officials under the Representation of People Act, 1950. It noted that EROs are the statutory authorities for preparing and revising electoral rolls, and that all officers involved in the election process are on 'deputation to the Election Commission,' making them subject to its control and discipline. The ECI stressed Section 32 of the Act, which states that any electoral officer who is found to be in breach of their official duty without reasonable cause is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to two years and a fine. 'It has been reported that the said officers have not only failed to perform their duty as ERO and AERO while disposing of the (Form 6) applications, but also violated the policy of data security while sharing their login credentials of the ER database with unauthorised persons,' states the Election Commission's letter. Form 6 is the application form for inclusion of a new voter's name in the electoral roll. According to sources, the five officials and one data operstor have been found involved in wrongful addition of names in the rolls. The ECI's decision drew varied responses from political parties in the state, with the BJP and the Congress welcoming the step. BJP state president Shamik Bhattacharya said that 'national security had been compromised'. 'We welcome this step by the Commission. The removal of fake voters from the list is not just BJP's demand but also something that all people of Bengal want,' Bhattacharya said. TMC leader Debangshu Bhattacharya responded cautiously: 'If someone is at fault, has done something wrong, and is being punished, then there is nothing to say.' However, he raised concerns that the action might be a 'ploy by the EC, which we obviously think is backed by the BJP, to terrorise ground-level administrative officials.' Congress spokesperson Somyo Aich questioned the motive behind the fake voter registrations, saying, 'The habit of giving entry to fake voters in the electoral roll, who is doing this? Why do they want fake voters?' He said that some officers might be acting 'out of fear', and urged the Commission to 'find out which political party is involved'. Sweety Kumari reports from West Bengal for The Indian Express. She is a journalist with over a decade of experience in the media industry. Covers Crime, Defence, Health , Politics etc and writes on trending topics. With a keen eye for investigative and human-interest stories. She has honed her craft across diverse beats including aviation, health, incidents etc. Sweety delivers impactful journalism that informs and engages audiences. Sweety Kumari is a graduate of Calcutta University with an Honors degree in Journalism from Jaipuria College and a PG in Mass Communication from Jadavpur University. Originally from Bihar, she is brought up in Kolkata and completed her education from Kendriya Vidyalaya SaltLake. Multilingual, Sweety is fluent in English, Hindi, Bengali, and Maithili. She started her career as an Entertainment and lifestyle journalist with a newsportal in Kolkata. She is working with The Indian Express for 8 years now. ... Read More
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Brazil's Supreme Court caught off guard by order to arrest Bolsonaro, sources say
* Brazil's Supreme Court caught off guard by order to arrest Bolsonaro, sources say Justice Moraes placed ex-President Bolsonaro under house arrest * The order came amid dispute with Bolsonaro ally Trump * Bolsonaro faces trial on attempted coup charges By Luciana Magalhaes, Ricardo Brito and Lisandra Paraguassu SAO PAULO, - Brazil's Supreme Court was caught off-guard by Justice Alexandre de Moraes' decision late on Monday to place former President Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest, two sources at the court told Reuters on Tuesday. The order underscores Moraes' readiness to act on his own despite both polarization among Brazilians on the issue and rising tensions with the White House. It came just days ahead of the introduction of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods entering the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump imposed the levies as a reaction to what he has characterized as a "witch hunt" led by Moraes against Bolsonaro, who is standing trial under charges of plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing and described Moraes as a "dictator." Moraes' ruling has sparked concern within the Brazilian government that Trump could retaliate by inflicting further damage to Brazil's economy, two sources close to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's inner circle told Reuters. But Brazilian officials are not planning to push back against Moraes. The two court sources, one of whom is a justice, told Reuters that the other Supreme Court justices were supportive of Moraes, while those close to Lula said the president has neither the willingness nor the ability to influence the Supreme Court. "It doesn't change our approach in the slightest," said the justice, who asked not to be named to discuss the matter candidly. The Lula administration is instead planning policies to support those industries likely to be hardest hit by Trump's tariffs and to keep diplomatic channels open with Washington, said the political sources. But the Moraes move could create obstacles for the Brazilian negotiators, said Fabio Medina Osorio, Brazil's former attorney general. "This decision can certainly make things difficult," he said. A POLARIZED COUNTRY The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a verdict within weeks on the charges that Bolsonaro and his allies plotted to overthrow democracy. It is widely expected to convict the former president. Moraes' house arrest order cited a failure to comply with restraining orders he had imposed on Bolsonaro for allegedly courting Trump's interference in the case. While domestically Moraes has received praise by some for defending Brazil's judicial independence, others have accused him of overreach. The latest order drew mixed reactions, according to a Quaest poll based on social media posts, with 53% in favor and 47% against the arrest. Newspapers that had written scathing editorials about the alliance between Bolsonaro and Trump also questioned Moraes' decisions. "Moraes was wrong to order the arrest of the former president for communicating with supporters in a rally organized by the right," an editorial by Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo said. "Brazil must acknowledge that Jair Bolsonaro has broad freedom to defend himself in court and to express himself wherever he chooses, including on social media." Former Supreme Court justices, too, offered differing views regarding the decision. "Alexandre de Moraes, in his ruling, not only upholds the country's sovereignty and independence but also the autonomy of Brazil's judiciary," said Carlos Ayres Britto, who left the Supreme Court bench in 2012. But former Justice Marco Aurelio Mello disagreed. "My perspective would be different given the constitutional principle of presumed innocence," he said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Honest officers must be protected: SC on challenges to amend anti-graft Act
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) said a provision in an anti-corruption law which mandates prior sanction before prosecuting public servants serves to protect honest bureaucrats from becoming victims of political vendetta after a regime change. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced in July 2018, bars any 'enquiry or inquiry or investigation' against a public servant for recommendations made in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority. 'Honest officers who do not toe the line after a change in government will be protected,' Justice K.V. Viswanathan, part of a Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by the non-profit organisation Centre for Public Interest Litigation, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging Section 17A. Mr. Bhushan argued the provisions crippled the anti-corruption law as sanctions were not usually forthcoming from the government, who was the 'competent authority'. The senior lawyer said the section made the government a judge in its own cause, and must be struck down. Mr. Bhushan submitted that only about 40% of the cases, that is involving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), got prior approval under Section 17A for investigation. 'States are not granting sanction,' he submitted. He suggested giving the power of prior approval to an independent body. Strike a balance The Bench, however, said rather than 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', the court would examine if a balance could be struck. 'There are officers who give their life and soul to the country. How does we ensure that they do not become prey to frivolous prosecution for their official actions or recommendations made in the line of duty,' Justice Viswanathan observed. Justice Nagarathna remarked that the court cannot approach the issue with a preconceived notion that 'all officers were dishonest or all of them were honest'. 'Honest officers must be protected while dishonest ones must be investigated. The former must not do their work with a Damocles sword hanging over their heads. Their hands should not shake before taking an official decision or we would run the risk of complete policy paralysis,' Justice Nagarathna observed. The judge said a provision cannot be held bad in law because its implementation may lead to abuse. 'The implementation of a provision on the ground is quite different from the question of its constitutionality. Ultimately, a balance has to be struck,' Justice Nagarathna observed. Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said without the shield of Section 17A, anybody with a grudge against a public servant could rope in an NGO to file cases against the official. When Justice Viswanathan said sanction may not be forthcoming from the government against its 'blue-eyed boys and girls' in the officialdom, Mr. Mehta responded that it was true in all three branches of governance. He said that such cases could be challenged in court on a case-to-case basis. He urged the court not to legislate and strike down Section 17A. 'He [Bhushan] cannot ask the Supreme Court to assume legislative functions,' the top law officer submitted. The court reserved the case for judgment.
