SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (31 Aug 2018)

Claimant cannot maintain a claim on basis of his own fault or negligence

MANU/SC/0925/2018

Motor Vehicles

National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed present appeal challenging the judgment whereby the High Court has directed the Appellant-insurer to pay the compensation to the Respondents awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 10,57,800 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

The Appellant has contended that, the deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle and has caused the accident. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. He cannot be treated as a third party. Therefore, the High Court has rightly held that, the claim petition filed by the Respondents was not maintainable. In view of this finding, the High Court was not justified in directing the Appellant to pay the compensation.

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, 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, 1988.

Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the Appellant/insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Since, the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs. 2,00,000 under the contract of insurance, the Respondents are entitled for the said amount towards compensation. Hence, the Appellant is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today. The appeal is allowed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   PAYMENT   DIRECTION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved