Jammu and Kashmir High Court Dismisses Appeal Filed by National Insurance Company Against Tribunal’s Award

Must Read

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Follow us

Hon’ble Mrs Justice Sindhu Sharma heard the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v Feroz-ud-Din & Anr via video-conferencing. The Court directed the appellant-company to deposit the amount of the award passed. This Court heard the matter on June 12, 2020.

Facts of the Case

On 16th October 2017, at around 10:15 A.M., an accident occurred near Kashor, Jodhpur. Bashir Ahmed, the owner of the vehicle, was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, the accident resulted in the death of Bashir Ahmed and his family. The Tribunal found that the appellant company insured the offending vehicle. Hence, the insurer was under a legal obligation to indemnify the owner. 

The Tribunal issued an interim award of ₹50,000 in each claim petitions in favour of the claimants. Subsequently, the appellant — National Insurance Company — made four appeals challenging the Tribunal’s Award. These appeals involved common questions of fact and law. Thus, the Court decided to hear them together and decide upon them by a common judgment.

Contentions of the Appellant

The insured is not impleaded as a party in the claim petitions. Thus, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The liability of the insurer is to indemnify the insured. But in this case, the insured is dead. The appellant referred to the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sasilatha, 2000(1) ACJ 661. The High Court of Kerala decided upon this case. It held that under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, no-fault liability is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not on the insurer.

Under an insurance policy, the contract is to indemnify the insured against third-party liability. Thus, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation under no-fault liability in the absence of the insured. Additionally, the appellant referred to the Supreme Court case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi, 1998 AIR (SC) 257. In this case, the Court held that the insurer is not liable and the liability lies with the owner of the vehicle.

Contentions of the Respondents

The claimants-respondents are the grandparents of the deceased whose son was driving the said vehicle. They had filed claim petitions against National Insurance Company Limited & others. They sought compensation under Section 166 and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998.

Court’s Analysis

In Sunita Rathi’s case, the Supreme Court passed the judgment against the final award of the Tribunal. However, it was not against the order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the appellant referred to the cleavage of judicial opinion unnecessarily. The Supreme Court has already settled the law regarding no-fault liability. Hence, it is not necessary to implead the insured who is dead. The claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is irrespective of the fact whether the deceased was at fault as long as the insurance company is not disputing.

Court’s Decision

The appeals had no merits. Hence, the Court dismissed all four appeals. It directed the appellant to deposit the amount of the Award passed in all the claim petitions. This Court ordered the appellant to deposit the amount within a month. It added that the failure to do so would lead to an additional payment of 12% interest per annum.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -