Motor Accidents and Cases for Compensation

 *Law on Motor Accidents and Cases for Compensation*

Case 1

In this case, the company argued that it should be exonerated because the vehicle is not involved in the accident. Appeal of insurance company was dismissed and insurance company was directed to pay interest amount in addition to principal claim amount. It was held "In any case, the level of scrutiny in cases like instant one and the criminal case cannot be equated."

Case reference is NICL v. Manoj Kumar [2018] GCtR 888 (Delhi).

Case 2

In this case, insurance company raised the ground that negligence of driver of the insured vehicle has not been established and so, the claim petitions ought to be dismissed.  Further argument raised was on influence of liquor at the time of this accident. The grounds of insurance company were rejected and insurance company was directed to pay amount with 9% interest without any recovery rights. It was held that insurance company cannot be exonerated and claim petition cannot be dismissed.

Case reference is NICL v. Prem Lata [2018] GCtR 2318 (Delhi). 

Case 3

In this case, Insurer sought exoneration from paying awarded compensation on the ground that the insured bus was not having a valid permit. After discussing law, it was held that insurance company cannot be exonerated nor can be granted recovery rights. Insurance company was directed to pay interest amount in addition to principal compensation amount. 

Case reference is NICL v. Anil Kumar [2018] GCtR 6514 (Delhi).

Case 4

In this case, the insurance company argued that negligence of driver of the insured vehicle has not been established and so, the claim petitions ought to be dismissed. Insurer submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the insured vehicle was not driven by Jitender even though FIR was registered and charge sheet was filed against him. It is pointed out by Insurer that in the Claim Petition filed by  Jitender, relief was sought against owner and insurer of the vehicle in question only. Thus, it was submitted that the finding returned by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is inconclusive as to who was driving the insured vehicle on the day of accident. So, it was argued by insurance company that the petition filed by Claimant- Jitender was not maintainable and hence, the compensation granted to him deserves to be disallowed. 

It was held that insurance company cannot be exonerated nor can be granted recovery rights in this case. Insurance company was directed to pay interest amount in addition to compensation amount.

Case reference is NICL v. Veena [2018] GCtR 6515 (Delhi).

Case 5

In this case, insurance company raised the ground of lack of negligence of the driver of Insured vehicle. It was argued that the finding regarding the negligence is perverse, as the MACT has not adverted to the evidence on record. It was held that neither recovery rights can be granted nor exoneration can be granted to insurance company. Waiver from interest liability was also not given to insurance company. 

Case reference is NICL v. Ravi Makhija [2018] GCtR 5359 (Delhi).

Case 6 

🔆 In this case, the victim of road accident was a minor aged 5 years. Insurance company did not settled the case in Lok Adalat. Ultimately, Ld. MACT had passed an award granting compensation amount of less than Rs. 13 lacs. After explaining the law, it was found that compensation amount of less than Rs. 13 lacs would be treated insufficient in this case and compensation amount was enhanced.

🔸 Case reference is Lalan v. NICL [2024] GCtR 3466 (Kalaburagi, Karnataka).

*Case 7*

In this case, the question that was answered was whether an insurance company can be exonerated or can it be granted recovery rights by raising the argument that the involvement of vehicle is in doubt by referring to FIR ?

Case reference is *NICL v. Babli [2025] GCtR 1845 (P&H).*

*Case 8* 

In this case, the controversy that was resolved was whether the insurance company is entitled to recovery rights or exoneration from payment by raising the ground disputing the involvement of insured vehicle or by arguing that vehicle was falsely implicated ?

Case reference is *NICL v. Ramandeep Kaur [2025] GCtR 1846 (P&H)*

 

*Whether in a case of accident that occurred in the year 2016, income of less than Rs. 22,000/- per month can be taken for a person who is a victim of accident merely because such has no proof of salary to calculate compensation under MV Act, 1988? Whether interest liability of insurance company can be reduced because insurance company has filed the appeal ?* Answered in NICL v. Gurmeet Singh Chadha [2024] GCtR 3467 (Delhi). 

Whether compensation amount granted under MV Act, 1988 can be reduced / waiver on the basis of argument of insurance company that victim has not suffered any kind of loss in the salary ? Answered in NICL v. Zahida Kausar [2024] GCtR 3468 (Delhi)

*Whether the interest liability can be waived/reduced or whether the compensation amount can be reduced because insurance company argues that the grant of high risk allowance should not have been granted to the victim while calculating compensation under MV Act, 1988 ?* Answered in NICL v. Duni Chand [2024] GCtR 3469 (Delhi)

*The case of NICL v. Anil Kumar [2024] GCtR 1234 (Delhi) has explained issues related to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.* In this case it was answered whether the insurance company will be granted any recovery rights /waiver from interest liability or compensation amount by raising the argument that the driving licence was fake after examining the concerned official of RTO ?