Tag: Motor Accident Claim

Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors – 01/07/19

Motor Accident Claim-functional disability at 100% -loss of earning capacity- The Appellant is entitled to the following amounts:

i) Rs. 32,40,000/to be awarded towards loss of future earnings by taking the income of the Appellant at Rs. 10,000/p. m., and granting Future Prospects @50%;

ii) Rs. 7,50,000/to be awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing surgeries and medical treatment;

iii) Rs. 10,00,000/to be awarded towards future medical expenses and attendant charges;

iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained.

And

If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of ‘pay and recover’ can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.

Consortium- SC explained the meaning and held Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial welfare legislation

September 18, 2018: While granting  Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case of death  Supreme Court Held: The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. 
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & ANR [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 05, 2018: MOTOR INSURANCE-Permanent disability should be reckoned as 67% to the whole body. However, after going through the evidence of the doctor who had treated the appellant and the medical records, we find that the assessment made by the tribunal about the extent of permanent disability at 60% to the whole body seems to be a possible view. We are not inclined to disturb the said finding and also because it has been justly affirmed by the High Court, being concurrent finding of fact. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation amount does not merit interference-APPEAL NOT ALLOWED.

Whether owner of vehicle would get benefit of insurance if meet with accidental death while driving illegally

It is an admitted
position that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question.
The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased
himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the
offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The
deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A
Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or
negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident
on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the
insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the
LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.