Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the original claimants, Janardhan Sitaram Surve and Pragati Janardhan Surve, against the Judgment and Award dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 70 of 2017, whereby their claim petition was rejected. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Aniket Surve, aged about 23 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident on Alibag Pen road. According to the claimants, the deceased was traveling in an Alto car bearing No. MH-06/AZ-4543 when an unknown vehicle, driven rashly and negligently, dashed into the Alto car, causing fatal injuries. An FIR was lodged as Crime No. 88 of 2016. The claimants alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Alto car by its driver. The vehicle was owned by opponent No.1 (Sunil Ramesh Ukrulkar) and insured with opponent No.2 (TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.). The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a vehicle that was not insured for third-party risk. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the deceased was a third party and the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Alto car. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the insurance company to pay compensation as per law. The court also noted that the insurance company could recover the amount from the owner if the vehicle was not covered by third-party insurance.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Third Party - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimants sought compensation for death of their son in a motor vehicle accident - The Tribunal rejected the claim holding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a vehicle not covered by third-party insurance - The High Court held that the deceased was a third party and the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Alto car driver - The court allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay compensation - Held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a vehicle that was not insured for third-party risk, and whether the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Alto car.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the insurance company to pay compensation as per law. The insurance company may recover the amount from the owner if the vehicle was not covered by third-party insurance.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Negligence
- Third Party
- Contributory Negligence
- Rash and Negligent Driving
