Insured vehicle -- Plying under an agreement with the Corporation – During such time it will be deemed that that vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy, even if it were insured at the instance of the original owner -- Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Passengers beyond seating capacity of vehicle – Effect of -- Seven persons were travelling in the vehicle whereas the registered seating capacity of the vehicle is of five only – Held, Insurer is liable to the extent of persons permitted under the carriage permit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Agreement between Transport Corporation and owner of Bus regarding liability on account of accident – Effect of – Held, it is only between the Corporation and the bus owner and does not bind anybody who is not privy to the aforesaid agreement, least of all, the victim -- Sum awarded by the MACT will be payable only by the Insurance Company with interest.

(SC) Decided on: 08.06.2020

Package/comprehensive policy -- Vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of policy conditions – Insurance Company’s liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- As per the policy, vehicle was insured for own damage as well as third party – Held, the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- At the same time, since the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company shall be entitle to have right of recovery against the insured after payment of compensation to the claimants. Balakrishnan’s case 2013 ACJ 199 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Comprehensive policy -- Deceased was driving motorcycle – Claim petition against owner of motorcycle / Insurance company – Held, the instant policy being a comprehensive policy, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2019

Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicle – Claimants are young children who have suffered permanent disability -- Principle of “pay and recover” should be invoked – Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2019

Third party Policy -- Pillion rider – Gratuitous passenger – Prayer that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger riding pillion on the motor-cycle, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation at all, dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Even assuming that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation, as the offending tractor was duly insured, the insurer would be still liable to pay the compensation amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. National Insurance Co.’s case 2004 (3) SCC 297 relied.

(SC) Decided on : 28.03.2018

Driving license – Authorization to drive -- Onus of proof – Owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle was being driven by a person having valid driving licence -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle -- To subserve the ends of justice, the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Third party liability -- Act only policy -- Comprehensive/Package policy -- Attempt of the insurance companies to avoid statutory liability by creating artificial distinction of Comprehensive/Package policy and the alleged 'Act only policy' does not stand legal scrutiny under the provisions of the New Act -- Qua the claim for damages to third party liability; every policy has to be taken as 'Act Policy' only, since it is mandatory to be issued by the Insurance Company and it is mandatory to be obtained by the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act -- In that sense every policy, qua third party, can be said to be and has to be only an 'Act Policy' -- Classification created by the insurance company cannot be made a ground by it for avoiding liability arising from an insured vehicle, qua the damages to the third party, including passengers in private passenger car/pillion rider on a Motor Cycle -- IRDA does not have any authority to prescribe extra and separate amount even to cover the third party risk because that would tantamount to violation and dilution of the scope of compulsory Insurance prescribed under Section 147(1)(b)(i).

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Geographical binding -- Insurance policy is attached to the 'vehicle' in question and not to Geographical expense of the area of operation of the vehicle in question -- Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation only on the ground that the vehicle was used in any particular city, state or a particular geographical area -- Insurance Company cannot even avoid its liability qua third party, on the ground that it can charge extra premium to cover any particular geographical area and that the insured has not paid that extra premium to cover that particular geographical area.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.11.2017

Compensation to employee – Transfer of vehicle – Intimation to Insurance company – Requirement of – No intimation of transfer was given to Insurance Company -- Even if vehicle stand transferred to the name of another person, the liability of insurer to pay compensation to third party shall not cease -- Section 157 sub-section(1) contains the deeming provision that “the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of this transfer.”

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2017

Gratuitous passengers – Principle of “pay and recover” -- Victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" – Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. Saju P. Paul’s case (2013) 2 SCC 41 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Gratuitous passengers – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Plea of gratuitous passengers has been raised for the first time before High Court in appeal, which cannot be allowed -- If a plea is not taken and a point for consideration is not specifically framed whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, it cannot be urged for the first time in appeal -- Thus, it can be safely concluded that the insurance company cannot plead for exclusion of liability and cannot deny indemnity to insured on the ground of violation of terms of policy. Bachhi Bai’s case 2011 ACJ 2475 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Gratuitous passengers – Third party risk – Whether the gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle would fall within the meaning of 'third party' and thus, would be covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Act – Held, object and purpose of Sections 146 and 147 are that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act – Admittedly, passengers were authorized representatives of the owner on the offending vehicle and thus covered under the policy of insurance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Discharge against medical advice – Death of – A decision to get discharged even against medical advice at the terminal stage of life shall not be likened to an invitation to be assisted suicide -- It is embracing dignity in death – It will not exculpate a tort feasor or a person who is bound to indemnify to make possible a plea that the patient ought to have taken treatment -- A right not to get treated is just as well a significant right to a patient as a right to be treated -- A dilemma that a court might face, when approached whether the patient shall be allowed to die by withdrawal of life support is quite different from a patient expressing desire not to be treated -- In the former, it is broaching issue of passive euthanasia and in the latter, it is an issue of patient autonomy -- Former grapples with legal uncertainty and still debatable, however in the latter, there is no ambiguity; it is beyond debate – Ultimate decision making the insurer liable is therefore inevitable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2016

Accident with stationary vehicle – Stationary vehicle – Onus of proof -- In the stationary vehicle parked in any public place a duly licensed driver should be in the driver seat, unless the mechanism of the vehicle has been stopped and brakes have been applied – Onus is always upon the Insurance Company to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy – So, it was for the Insurance Company to establish that the mechanism of the vehicle was operating though it was stationary when the accident took place, but no such evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company -- Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Loss of cover-note by Insurance company – Proof of -- Insurance Company is disputing its liability on the plea that cover note was never issued by it and the same was lost -- So, it was incumbent upon the appellant-Insurance Company to establish the loss of cover note -- Insurance Company has not been able to establish the loss of the cover note in question -- Appellant-Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Driver of offending vehicle – Contention that Driving Licence placed on record by the owner is of one Mahesh whereas, driver of offending vehicle is Bablu -- It is the specific case of the owner of the offending vehicle that Mahesh and Bablu are one and the same person -- Driving Licence bears the photograph of the said respondent -- Father's name of Mahesh is duly mentioned as Ram Sarup in the Driving Licence -- Claim petition clearly mentioned the driver's father to be Ram Sarup -- Challan/report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed in FIR duly mentioned the accused as Bablu @ Mahesh son of Ram Sarup -- Insurance Company has not brought on record any evidence to negate the abovesaid -- No benefit can accrue to the Insurance Company on this count.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Package policy – Pillion rider -- Package policy that provided the insurance cover to the representatives of the deceased pillion rider, the liability of the insurer is inescapable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Onus is on Insurance company to call insured -- If the claimants were trying to place on record the evidence to say that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of the driver, the insurer to place best possible evidence -- Insured was not a stranger to the insurer -- Motor Vehicles Act enables the insurer to secure details of the accident from the insured u/s 133 and it would be perfectly competent for the insurer to secure the presence of the insured to give evidence that could have suited the insurer's purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Route permit -- Violation of -- Violation of all terms and conditions mentioned in the permit does not allow the Insurance Company to avoid its liability -- Tribunal ought to have provided full right of indemnity to the owner and driver under the contract of insurance –Insurance Company shall take full liability to pay the entire compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Ownership of vehicle – Lease of vehicle to Transport undertaking – Intimation not given to Insurance Company -- Transport undertaking can also be treated as owner for the purposes of Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 -- Insurer cannot escape the liability to indemnify as in the case of hiring of vehicle intimation is not required to be given, it is only in the case of complete transfer of the vehicle an intimation has to be given by the transferee for effecting necessary changes in the policy -- Even otherwise, that would be a ministerial act and the insurer cannot escape the liability for that reason.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Registered owner – Bus given on hire to Public Transport – Policy of insurance is contractual obligation between the insured and the insurer -- It has not been shown that owner could not have given bus on hire as per any provision of policy – In the absence of any stipulation prohibiting such an arrangement in the insurance policy, in view of agreement of lease, the Registered owner and insurer cannot also escape from the liability -- More so, in view of the provisions of Section 157 of the Act of 1988, the insurer cannot escape the liability.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Transfer of vehicle by hire/lease/sale -- Deemed transfer of policy – Certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer -- Even if there is a transfer of the vehicle by sale, the insurer cannot escape the liability as there is deemed transfer of the certificate of insurance -- Hire purchase agreement, an agreement for lease or an agreement for hypothecation are covered under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 -- A person in possession is considered to be an owner of the vehicle under such agreements -- Held, an agreement for lease on hire cannot be said to be contract envisaged for exclusion under contractual liability in second proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

No fault liability – Liability of Insurance Company with recovery rights -- In case of death in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation for liability without fault -- It has been made Rs.50,000/- by Amending Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994 from Rs.25,000/- -- Accident occurred earlier to 1994 i.e. on 23.6.1991 – Rs.25,000/- is liable to be granted to the appellants -- Though the liability of the Insurance Company as per its policy is limited to Rs.20,000/-, however, it is liable to pay the entire amount and recover the excess amount from the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Personal accident claim – Accident by borrower/brother of owner of vehicle -- Accident had not taken place with the involvement of any other vehicle but because a cow had come in front of motorcycle all of a sudden and in order to save the cow he lost his balance and fell on the road and sustained injuries -- Whether the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation to claimant who is neither the registered owner nor covered under any insurance policy – Payment on account of personal accident claim can be given to the person duly covered under the insurance policy and not to anybody else including brother of the person covered under such a policy -- Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

Deceased was sitting on mudguard of Tractor -- Insurance Company is not liable for the claim on account of death of person, who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, fell down and died -- Tractor is meant only for one person i.e. driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.03.2015

Death of passenger -- Claim petition – Negligence – Proof of -- An act of a driver dashing against a tree must mean that there had been a negligent act only on the part of the driver -- Instance where a driver could plead exoneration of such a responsibility shall be when there is a mechanical failure but there again the liability of the owner would still be exposed -- A vehicle is bound to be kept in a state of repair and if there was a mechanical defect that resulted in accident, it should still be seen as want of care by the owner that would make him liable and consequently, the insurer is liable for any claim arising out of the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Death of passenger -- Claim petition – Negligence of Driver – Proof of -- Minimal requirement is that the death or injury is by the use of a motor vehicle – Death that as resulted is a typical illustration of a res ipsa loquitur situation and no further proof for negligence is necessary than merely statement of fact of death or injury -- This is not a claim by the driver or owner of the vehicle, which alone would be barred -- The claim is by a passenger in a case where there is a comprehensive insurance cover for risk to a passenger -- Owner of the vehicle held to be liable the same way as the driver is and this shall be channelled to the liability of the insurer as a person who is bound to indemnify the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014