#motor accident claims

The Gauhati High Court held that a cover note remains valid for 60 days under IRDA regulations, and the pay-and-recover principle prevents insurers from avoiding third-party liability due to a driver's licence violation unless the breach directly caused the accident. The ruling reinforces that statutory victim protection under the Motor Vehicles Act overrides policy defences unconnected to the collision.

The High Court ruled that brothers of a deceased victim qualify as 'legal representatives' under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and are entitled to claim compensation without proving financial dependency. The Tribunal's rejection of the claim solely on dependency grounds was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication within one year.

The Gujarat High Court ruled insurer liability starts on premium receipt, not policy effective date, overturning the Tribunal’s denial of compensation for a 1990 accident. It modified the MACT award to Rs 83,000 with 12% interest, payable within eight weeks.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC for pain and suffering cannot be set off against MACT awards for loss of dependency, as they compensate different heads of loss. It directed that the criminal compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending the outcome of the criminal appeal, benefitting victims' families by preserving both recoveries.

The MPHC held that a legal representative substituted under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC cannot be ordered to pay compensation based on a contested will without civil court adjudication. It upheld the MACT’s ₹2,90,000 award as just and reasonable.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a superdar (subsequent purchaser without registration transfer) is liable only up to the vehicle's value or the superdari bond amount, not the full compensation award. The registered owner and driver remain jointly and severally liable for the entire amount, and courts must impose conditions safeguarding the claimants' lien on the vehicle.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court nearly doubled compensation for a 23-year-old engineer's death to ₹22.27 lakh, applying the Pranay Sethi formula with a 40% future-prospects addition and an 18-year multiplier. It also barred the insurer's recovery claim, ruling that an out-of-state driving licence cannot be presumed invalid without proof of policy breach.

The Supreme Court upheld a multiplier of 16 for the parents of a 33-year-old bachelor under the Sarla Verma matrix, and raised the pillion rider's functional disability to 100% based on a Medical Board report confirming total permanent incapacity from cortical blindness, pelvic fractures, and a permanent colostomy. The ₹3.77 crore award with 7.5% interest sets a precedent for catastrophic injury compensation.

The Gauhati High Court held that an insurer remains liable to pay compensation to third-party victims under the 'pay and recover' principle even when the driver lacked a valid licence, affirming that such a violation does not absolve the insurer of statutory liability. The ruling reinforces Supreme Court precedent that policy breaches by the driver cannot prejudice innocent third parties' rights to compensation.

The Jharkhand HC said an insurer must prove any licence breach under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It raised the claim award to Rs 16.22 million with 6 % interest, stressing the duty to pay just compensation.

The Allahabad HC held quadriplegia warrants 100% functional disability despite 70% medical certification, granted 50% future prospects under Rule 220A, allowed multiplier-based attendant charges, and awarded past medical expenses conservatively despite missing bills, nearly doubling the MACT award for a 22-year-old conductor.

Jharkhand HC quashed the order requiring an Rs 8 lakh security for releasing a seized Maruti Baleno, directing that only a reasonable indemnity bond be furnished. The decision enforces proportionality under Section 528 BNSS, shielding vehicle owners from arbitrary financial demands.

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed that an insurer's liability under a comprehensive motor insurance policy is limited to Rs 1 lakh per passenger, even when higher compensation is awarded. It raised the total compensation to Rs 37.62 lakh, emphasizing that policy terms prevail over IRDA circulars. This ruling impacts insurers and claimants in motor accident claims across the state.

The Supreme Court ruled that an FIR and the accompanying charge-sheet suffice as prima facie proof of negligence in motor accident cases, and that a criminal acquittal does not extinguish the right to claim civil damages. This expands claimants’ ability to recover full compensation despite a not-guilty verdict.

The Calcutta High Court held that a deliberately caused act can still qualify as an ‘accident’ under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, raising the award to Rs 60 lakh with 6 % interest and rejecting the insurer’s Mediclaim set-off claim.