Mumbai: The recent Bombay court stated that someone’s dependents died in an accident while riding a motorcycle he borrowed from the owner, there was no involvement of other vehicles, no right to compensate third-party or victims under the motorbike.
Vehicle (MV) acts.
MV Act Part 163 establishes responsibility for vehicle owners to pay compensation if there is a permanent death or disability due to accidents arising from vehicle use, for legal or victim heirs.
Justice NJ Jamadar on January 4 argues that the dependents of a man who had borrowed his brother motorcycle and died in an accident in 2007 when heading to the workplace, did not involve other vehicles, not entitled to compensation under the 163A part of the MV action, but also entitled From RS 1 Lakh provided in the insurance contract to the owner-cum-driver, with eight percent interest from the date of the application.
In terms of claims by non-third parties, in the absence of a contract to pay compensation for death or injury to the insured driver or to be paid, insurance companies are not responsible for paying compensation, said the high court.
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
has appealed the 2012 Motor Claim Claim Court Court (MACT) which directed it to pay nearly 4 lakh Rs and interest to the Plaintiff who was a dependent on brother riding a motorcycle.
Insurer through Advocates D R Mahadik submitted that it cannot be burdened with accountability because accidents occur due to insured negligence themselves.
Anand Patil’s advocates submitted that negligence questions are entirely irrelevant in a part of 163 applications and MACT thus justified in compensation.
HC said this problem was the dependents of such non-owners who died in accidents entitled to compensation under section 163a.
It is a special provision in the MV Act where prosecutors are not required to determine that death or injury is caused by the wrong action or the owner’s error said HC.
“This, however, does not imply that insurance companies are responsible for paying compensation in cases where it is not contracted or on a contract with risk,” HC added.
The person who died stepped into the shoe owner, said the High Court Observing he was not employed by vehicle owners, as a result, he was not a third party for the purposes of the insurance company.