#Motor Vehicle Law

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that insurers cannot escape liability under Section 147 merely because the driver lacked a license-proof of actual policy breach is mandatory. This reinforces victim compensation rights and mandates courts to apply revised notional income norms for permanent disability, ensuring fairer awards regardless of the driver’s legal status.

A pillion rider injured in a two-motorcycle collision can claim no-fault compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act without naming or impleading the driver of the other vehicle. The Karnataka HC affirms this right, upholding a Rs. 92,000 award with 7.5% interest from the date of accident, reinforcing that liability under Section 163A is statutory and independent of fault attribution to third parties.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that unchallenged eyewitness testimony and an FIR under IPC Sections 279 & 337 conclusively establish driver negligence, entitling the victim to compensation. The insurer must prove the driver's license was invalid to evade liability, reinforcing claimant rights under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Bombay High Court has held that a pillion rider is a third party under comprehensive motor insurance, making the insurer jointly liable for compensation in accident claims. This ruling overrides insurer arguments excluding pillion riders and aligns with the protective intent of the Motor Vehicles Act, affecting millions of two-wheeler users across India.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that parents-in-law qualify as 'legal representatives' under the Motor Vehicles Act if they can prove financial dependency on the deceased, regardless of inheritance status. This expands the scope of compensation claimants beyond statutory heirs, affirming that dependency-not lineage-determines entitlement under Section 166, with direct implications for insurance claims and family compensation petitions nationwide.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that insurance policies do not cover fare-paying passengers traveling in goods vehicles, absolving insurers of liability. The judgment reinforces the distinction between passenger and goods vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, while enhancing compensation using the Pranay Sethi framework for dependents of deceased victims.