The Bombay Excessive Court docket held lately {that a} car being hypothecated to a financial institution doesn’t make the financial institution chargeable for procuring car insurance coverage or paying accident compensation.
Justice Shivkumar Dige dismissed an attraction in opposition to order directing car proprietor to pay compensation to kin of deceased in a motor accident case observing –
“Mere car was hypothecated to the financial institution, can’t be a floor to shift legal responsibility of paying compensation on the mentioned financial institution. It was compulsory on the proprietor of car to take insurance coverage coverage of the car. The accident prompted because of negligence of the Appellant. Therefore financial institution can’t be maintain liable to pay the compensation mere hypothecation with it.”
The appellants raised two central points. Firstly, the age of the deceased particular person was contested, with the appellants claiming it was not adequately confirmed earlier than the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal).
Secondly, the appellants argued that the bike concerned within the accident was hypothecated to the Nutan Nagari Sahakari Financial institution Ltd., and the financial institution, being the hypothecatee, ought to have procured insurance coverage for the car. In absence of insurance coverage, the appellants contended, they weren’t liable to pay compensation.
Then again, the claimants asserted that the Tribunal had completely thought-about all features related to the case, and no interference was crucial within the Tribunal’s order.
The court docket upheld the Tribunal’s willpower that the person was 26 years previous on the time of the accident, discovering no infirmity. The court docket emphasised that the mere truth of hypothecation didn’t mechanically shift the accountability of insurance coverage to the financial institution.
Consequently, the court docket dismissed the attraction. The claimants had been granted permission to withdraw the deposited quantity together with accrued curiosity from the respondents. The statutory quantity, together with curiosity, was directed to be transferred to the Tribunal, permitting the events to withdraw it in accordance with guidelines.
Case no. – First Attraction No. 344 of 2011
Case Title – Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty
Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain Order
