Legal Heirs Of Negligent Driver Not Entitled To Compensation Under Motor Vehicle Act : Supreme Court

553715 motor accident compensation claims.webp

553715 motor accident compensation claims

The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday (July 2) reiterated that the authorized heirs of the deceased individual driving a car negligently can not search compensation underneath the Motor Automobiles Act (“MV Act”).

The partial courtroom working days bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to intrude with the Karnataka Excessive Court docket’s choice, which had dismissed the plea filed by the deceased authorized heirs for claiming compensation underneath Part 166 MV Act for his rash and negligent driving.

It was the case the place one N.S. Ravisha died in a automobile accident whereas driving a Fiat Linea automobile at excessive pace in a rash and negligent method. The automobile toppled, leading to his dying. His spouse, son, and oldsters (the appellants) filed a compensation declare of ₹80 lakhs underneath Part 166 of the Motor Automobiles Act, 1988, earlier than the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Arsikere.

The Tribunal dismissed the declare petition, holding that Ravisha was himself the tortfeasor (i.e., the wrongdoer who induced the accident), and due to this fact his authorized heirs weren’t entitled to compensation.

Following this, the appellants approached the Excessive Court docket.

Referring to the Supreme Court docket’s ruling of Ningamma and one other Vs. United India Insurance coverage Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Excessive Court docket held that as a result of “the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being self tort-feasor, the authorized heirs can not declare any compensation for his dying, in any other case it might quantity to an individual who dedicated breach getting the compensation for his personal wrongs.”

An argument was raised by the Appellants that the deceased was not the proprietor of the car by which the accident occurred; due to this fact, the insurance coverage firm can not draw back from its legal responsibility to indemnify the deceased for the loss that occurred.

Rejecting the Appellants argument, the Excessive Court docket referencing Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Nayan, (1977) 2 SCC 441, noticed that since deceased had borrowed the car from the proprietor (Respondent No. 1), he’s deemed to have stepped into the sneakers of the proprietor, therefore the insurance coverage firm can’t be held liable to compensate the proprietor or borrower for accidents/dying attributable to their very own negligence.

Discovering no good floor for interference with the impugned choice, the Court docket dismissed the petition.

Trigger Title: G. NAGARATHNA & ORS. VERSUS G. MANJUNATHA & ANR.



Source link