18 September 2024 Motor Accident >> Family Law  

This article discusses a recent appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which challenged a judgment by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Sindhudurg-Oros. The appeal was filed by an insurance company, contesting the tribunal's decision that held it jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants for a fatal accident.

Case Background:

The incident occurred on May 16, 2016, when Prabhavati Balkrushna Bhat, the deceased, was traveling with her family in an Alto car. The vehicle, driven by the deceased's son, lost control in the Zarap Muslimwadi area, collided with a road divider, and overturned. Tragically, Prabhavati sustained severe internal injuries and was declared dead shortly after arriving at the hospital.

Appeal Grounds:

The insurance company contested the tribunal's ruling on two main grounds:

1. Disputed Cause of Death: The insurance counsel highlighted testimony from Dr. Smita Prashant Pandit, who conducted the postmortem. She indicated that rigor mortis had set in, suggesting that Prabhavati may have died 18 to 20 hours before the postmortem conducted at 7:00 PM. The insurance company argued this timeline implied she might not have died due to the accident.

2. Driver's License Validity: The appellant claimed that the driver lacked a valid and effective driving license at the time of the incident, thus breaching policy terms.

Claimants' Response:

In response, the claimants' counsel pointed out that while Dr. Pandit noted the presence of rigor mortis, she also acknowledged that such a condition could develop 8 to 12 hours post-mortem. Furthermore, Dr. Pandit stated that Prabhavati's cause of death could be attributed to lung intra-alveolar hemorrhage, which could result from either natural causes or blunt trauma, as might occur in an accident. The claimants contended that the medical evidence did not conclusively rule out the possibility of accidental death, reinforcing their claim.

Tribunal's Findings:

The tribunal thoroughly examined the medical testimony and concluded that while the possibility of natural death existed, it could not be completely disregarded. The tribunal emphasized the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act and determined that compensation could not be denied on the basis of the evidence presented.

Regarding the driver’s license, the claimants provided valid documentation of the driver’s license and vehicle registration. The tribunal noted that the insurance company failed to present evidence supporting its claims of policy violations.

Conclusion:

After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the appellate court found no error in the tribunal’s decision. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the tribunal's judgment that the insurance company was liable for compensation. The statutory amount previously deposited by the insurance company will be transferred to the tribunal for appropriate disbursement. This case underscores the complexities involved in motor vehicle accident claims, particularly concerning the interpretation of medical evidence and the obligations of insurance providers under the law.

  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988