The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., affirming the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (MACT) award of Rs. 21,60,760 with 9% interest to the claimants. The court rejected the insurance company’s arguments concerning the timing of the death and the validity of the driver's license. The court favored the claimants, citing the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and upheld the Tribunal's ruling that the death occurred due to the accident.

• Facts (Paras 2-3):

  • Accident Details: Prabhavati Balkrishna Bhat died in a road accident on May 16, 2016, while traveling with her family. The driver, Respondent No. 3, lost control of the vehicle, resulting in it flipping over and causing fatal injuries to the deceased.
  • Claims Petition: The claimants, family members of the deceased, filed for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

• Arguments of the Insurance Company (Paras 4-5):

  • Challenge on Timing of Death: The insurance company argued that the deceased had died before the accident, based on the postmortem report, which showed signs of rigor mortis inconsistent with the timing of the accident.
  • Breach of Policy: They also contended that the driver did not hold a valid license at the time of the accident.

• Claimants' Response (Para 6):

  • Expert Testimony: The doctor who conducted the postmortem admitted that rigor mortis could set in within 8-12 hours, and bleeding in the lungs could result from blunt trauma, supporting the possibility of death due to the accident.
  • Validity of Driver’s License: The claimants produced the driver’s license and registration documents, countering the insurance company’s claim of policy breach.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that:

1. Probable Cause of Death (Para 7): The Tribunal rightly inferred the probability of death due to the accident based on medical evidence and the lack of conclusive proof from the insurance company. There was no substantial evidence suggesting that the deceased died prior to the accident.
2. No Valid Proof of Policy Breach (Para 9): The insurance company failed to present any convincing evidence regarding the invalidity of the driver's license or any breach of policy.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
  • Section 166: Deals with applications for compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
  • Section 173: Provides for appeals against MACT awards.

Subjects:

Motor Accident Claims | Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act | Timing of Death in Accident | Breach of Policy Conditions

Motor Vehicles Act, Road Accident, Compensation, Insurance Dispute, Postmortem Report, Breach of Policy, Validity of Driver’s License.