Skip to main content

short note on motor vehicle insurance

                      SHORT NOTE ON MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE 

There are many cases where motor vehicle insurance companies try to escape from its liability to pay for the losses suffered by the motor vehicle owner. 

Section 3 of motor vehicle act, provided for the necessity for driving license. No person shall drive in any public place unless he hold an effective driving license.

Section 4 of the motor vehicle act, provided for the age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicle.

  1. No person under the age of 18 shall drive a motor vehicle

  2. Engine capacity not exceeding 50cc may be driven in public place by a person attaining the age of 16 years

  3. No person under the age of 20 shall drive a transport vehicle 

Section 5 of the motor vehicle act, mention responsibility of owner of motor vehicle to follow section 3 & section 4 of the act. 

Section 146 of the motor vehicle act, allow for the compulsory 3rd party insurance for a motor vehicle by the owner. 

Section 147 of the motor vehicle act, provides for the requirements of policy & limits of liability

Section 149 of the motor vehicle act provides for the duty of insurer to satisfy judgements & award against persons insured in respect of 3rd party risk.

Section 149(2) (a) provides that there has been a breach of specified condition of the policy. The word “Breach” defined as knowingly violating the condition of the policy. 

  • Mare absence of fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving shall not be only criteria for the insurance company to dissolve their liability. 

  • To avoid liability the insurance company must prove that the owner knowingly give the vehicle to a person without valid license and does not exercise reasonable care regarding the use of vehicle

  • The question of whether owner of the vehicle exercise reasonable care in order to determine whether the license of the drive is valid or fake shall be determine case to case basis. 

  • There are Supreme Court Ruling where insurance company argue that-

  1. Driving license of the driver is fake

  2. Driver has no license to drive 

  3. License expired but not renewed 

  • The breach on the part of insured must be a willful and the burden of proof would be on the insurer. 

  • It is not the duty of the owner of the vehicle to verify the license of the driver from the competent authorities. The owner of the vehicle would take the test of the driver, if the owner satisfy that the driver is competent to drive, he can appoint the driver to drive his/her vehicle.

  • The owner of the vehicle shall not be liable to verify the genuineness of the license from the transport offices

  • The onus is on the insurer to prove that the owner of vehicle driven by the driver failed to take reasonable care in employing a qualified and competent driver having valid license. 

  • The owner-driver relationship is a master-servant relationship.

  • If the servant perform task out of employment then the owner shall not liable for the servant misdeeds.

  • The servant shall act within the scope of employment. 

  • The insurance company & the owner of the vehicle are jointly liable to pay compensation to the claimants when the accident is occurred under the course of employment. 

  • Owner not liable for negligence of the driver on the way without knowledge of the owner.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more