Judgments related to Avoidance Clause, injuries and disabilities under MV act

Judgments related to Avoidance Clause, injuries and    disabilities under MV act

 

Avoidance clause

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 S. 96 motor accident liability of insurance company liability of insurer limited upto Rs. 50,000/as

per limits of policy High Court found that insurer was liable up to Rs.50,000/but gave direction to pay claimants entire amount of compensation, but would be entitled to recover amount excess in its liability from owner of vehicle avoidance clause in policy provided that nothing therein would affect the right of person who is entitled to indemnification from insurer to recover under  S. 96 of the Act whether, directions given by High Court in consonance with terms of policy held, considering avoidance clause in policy, the directions given by High Court are in terms of policy, 2011 ACJ 2878 (SC), Santaben Vankar 2011 (3) GCD

2101 (GUJ)= 2012 AAC 2528, 2021 ACJ 367(Bom)

 

 Injuries and Disabilities:

Injury case doctor assessed disability as 75%doctor was cross examined at length but nothing adverse was traced out Tribunal

and HC assessed disability at 50%, without there being any cogent reason whether proper held – no – once doctor has opined that injured has sustained 75% disability and nothing adverse was traced out in his cross examination Tribunal and HC erred in assessing disability as 50%

2011 ACJ 2466 (SC) D.Sampath versus U.I.I. Com.

Ltd, Rudra versus Divisional Manager, reported

in 2011 SC 2572 =2011 (11) SCC 511.

Leg injuries resulted in fracture Doctor access disablement as 25% by observing that there is deficiency in the muscle same

was not believed by the lower Courts by holding that same did not result into permanent disablement SC overruled the same

2012 ACJ 1459 (SC) – Manoj Rathod

Doctors cannot be called to prove documents with respect to prolonged treatment unless they create doubt 2012 ACJ 1847

Whether the disability certificate issued by the private hospital is admissible in view of Rule 10.2 of the Rajasthan M.V. Rules, 1990HeldNo.

2013 ACJ 1236 (Raj)

But also see When Disability Certificate has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the Medical Board, it is public document and is admissible as provided u/s 77 of the Evidence Act and its contents are not required to be proved. 2017 ACJ 610 (All)

Amputation Whether the victim is entitled for compensation under the head of 'permanent Disablement' Held ; Yes.

2013 ACJ 1935 (SC) – S. Manickam v/s Metropolitan Transport

Arm amputation Whether claimant is entitled for any amount under the head of loss of amenities over and above the loss of earning capacity.

2013 ACJ 2122 (SC) – Neerupam Mohan Mathur v/s New India I.Com

Fracture of Pelvis and Uretha, resulting in impotence High

amount of compensation granted by SC

2013 ACJ 2131 (SC) – G. Ravindranath v/s E.Srinivas

Amputation left hand Calculation of amount of compensation

2014 ACJ 648 (SC) (FB) – M.D. Jacob v/s UII

Com., 2014 ACJ 1375 (SC) (FB) – M.K. Gopinathan,

2014 ACJ 1412 (SC) (FB)Dinesh Singh

Fracture Injuries to minor intelligent girl good academic career determination of compensation Guideline.

2014 ACJ 1441 (SC) – V. Menka v/s M. Malathi

When disability certificate has been issued by the Doctor who has not treated the victim and has examined the victim for the purpose of assessment of disability and same has been done on the basis of the XRay, whether such disability certificate can be can into consideration? Held,No.

2016 ACJ 1762 (Cal)

But see 2016 ACJ 2445 (Ker) where different view has

been taken.