The Bombay High Court partly allowed an appeal seeking to declare that the bursting of tyre was an act of god and hence no insurance can be claimed. The Court observed that merely stating that a burst of tyre is an "act of god" cannot be a ground to exonerate the appellant/insurance company from paying compensation.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant is an insurance company. There was an accident of a respondent who had insurance with the appellant. The appellant refused the insurance claim of the respondent on the ground that the accident was an act of God and it was not the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the accident occurred due to the burst of a tyre of the offending vehicle, so there was no negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in the accident, it was an act of God. The driver of the offending vehicle cannot be considered liable for it but Tribunal did not consider this fact.
Further, he submitted that the salary of the deceased is considered on the higher side, it includes various bhattas which cannot be considered part of the salary. The learned counsel further argued that the consortium amount and amount under other heads are awarded on the higher side. The tribunal has awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsels for the Respondent argued that no witness was examined to prove the defense taken by the appellant. The tribunal considered all aspects while awarding compensation. The judgment and order passed by the tribunal are legal and valid.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that The Dictionary meaning of "act of god" is "an instance of uncontrollable natural forces in operation". It refers to a severe, unanticipated natural event for which no human is responsible. The bursting of a tyre cannot be termed an act of God. It is an act of human negligence. There are various reasons for the bursting of tyre, i.e., High speed, under-inflated or over-inflated tyres, second-hand tyres, temperature, etc. The driver or owner of the vehicle has to check the condition of tyre before traveling, a burst of tyre cannot be termed as a natural Act, it is human negligence.
Further, the Court said that it is significant to note that the appellant has not examined the driver of the offending car to prove, the reason for the bursting of tyre. So merely stating that the burst of tyre is an "act of god" cannot be a ground to exonerate the appellant/insurance company from paying compensation.
Further, the Court remarked that while calculating the salary of the deceased, income tax, and professional tax have to be deducted and the rest of the salary can be considered as the salary of the deceased. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the salary of the deceased is considered on the higher side.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, partly allowing the appeal, held that the claimants are entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,24,60,960/- at the rate of interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the application till realization.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Legal Cell) vs Smt. Mrunal Makarand Patwardhan & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Dige
Case no.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. D. R. Mahadik
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Rohan Mahadik and Mr. Veerdhaval Kakade
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments