Judgments related to Private Vehicles under MV Act:

Judgments related to Private Vehicles under MV Act:

 

 

1.Private vehicle breach of policy in FIR it is stated that vehicle was hired IC disputed its liability relying on the word ‘hired’ in FIR eye

witnesses deposed that vehicle was ‘borrowed’ from the friend and denied that it was ‘hired’ whether IC is liable. Held ; yes. as

IC has neither confronted the witnesses with the statement made by them in FIR nor examined the IO or RTO officer

2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK), 2015 ACJ 1928 (Pat)

2. IC  seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that deceased and other injured students were travelling in privet ‘jeep’, which they had taken on hire comprehensive policy covers the risk of inmates of private vehicle IC cannot avoid its liability on the ground that deceased was paid passenger held terms in policy which discriminate liability of insurance company for paid inmate and gratuitous passengers, held discriminatory and illegal 2011 ACJ 1831 (KAR)

3. Private car policy gratuitous Passengers whether IC is laible? Held ; no.

2012 ACJ 1880

4. Act Policy private vehicle liability of insurance company no evidence produced by IC to avoid its liability. Deceased cannot be said that they were gratuitous passenger when they were travelling in private car.

2012 ACJ 2451 (Ori).

5. Private vehicle/car package policy whether occupants of the said vehicle be treated as TP? Whether IC can be held liable to pay compensation to such occupants? Held ; yes.

2013 ACJ 321 (SC) – O.I.Com. v/s Surendra Nath

Loomba. Also see, Balakrishan judgment.

6. Private vehicle package policy comprehensive policy owner cum driver – additional premium paid by owner whether under such situation IC can be held liable to pay amount of compensation? Held ; Yes.

National Insurance company v/s Balakrishnan, 2013 ACJ 199 (SC) followed.

2015 ACJ 379 (Sik), 2016 ACJ 194 (Bom), 2017 ACJ 2045

(SC) – NIA Com. V/s Shanti Bopanna. Contrary view by

Gujarat High Court in the case of Hemendrasinh Mansinh

Jadav v/s. Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Dabhi, 2019 ACJ 600 (S G

Shah J) NI Com.v/s. Legal Heirs of Gobarbhai Arjanbhai

Damasiya, 2022 ACJ 1388 Jst R M Chhaya and followed the

judgment delivered by the justice N V Anjaria in case of

UII Com. v/s. Ramdevbhai Dahyabhai Mokaria

6 – A. Owner travelling in the jeep as the occupant and not as an

employee – claimants contended that as the addition premium

paid by the insured towards PA cover for unnamed person includes coverage to employee of the owner whether under

these circumstances – IC can be held responsible? Held; – No. As

the addition premium paid by the insured towards PA cover

for unnamed person excludes coverage to employee of the

owner. 2021 ACJ 2379 (Mad).

7. Private vehicle owner of private car died due to the negligent driving of the car owned by the deceased along with owner, his son was also travelling in the said car and he also died in the said car accident mother of the minor filed claim petition without joining her husband/owner as party opponent but joined only IC whether in such situation, her claim petition is maintainable? Held ; Yes.

2015 ACJ 531 (HP)

7 – A. Husband of the owner of the tractor was travelling in the

said tractor and same turned turtle and husband of the owner sustainable injuries – claim petition by the husband of the owner is maintainable? Held ; No.

2017 ACJ 2209 (MP).

8. It is proved that Private vehicle was used as commercial vehicle – IC held not liable.

2016 ACJ 371 (Del).

9– School bus was being used for marriage party – whether in such situation IC is held liable to pay compensation? Held ; Yes.

2016 ACJ 732 (Chh)

9 – A IC disputed its liability on the count that offending

bus was initially insured as an omnibus and thereafter, by suppressing material fact, insurance policy was renewed by altering the class of vehicle as school bus – Held that when School bus (educational institution bus) used for carrying students and staff can be said to be used for hire and reward? Held ; No.

2016 ACJ 1531 (Ker)