- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Kerala High Court exonerates insurance company of liability No compensation for a person sharing the driver's seat in an auto-rickshaw The Kerala High Court has ordered that an insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if, while sharing the seat of the driver, the owner or a passenger is injured in a three-wheeler goods carriage. Exonerating Bajaj Allianz General...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Kerala High Court exonerates insurance company of liability
No compensation for a person sharing the driver's seat in an auto-rickshaw
The Kerala High Court has ordered that an insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if, while sharing the seat of the driver, the owner or a passenger is injured in a three-wheeler goods carriage.
Exonerating Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, the court held that if in such an eventuality an accident occurs, the liability is upon the owner of the vehicle. "Such an action violates the insurance policy conditions," the court said.
Single judge Justice A Badharudeen set aside the liability imposed on Bajaj Allianz by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) to compensate a person who was injured while sharing the driver's seat of a goods auto rickshaw.
The case put up by the appellant that the injured was accompanying the goods carrier along with the construction material to the worksite. He was sharing the seat of the driver and met with an accident during the course.
The court cleared that the insurance policy vividly mentioned that the seating capacity of the vehicle involved in the accident was for one person and nobody was permitted to travel in the carrier other than the driver.
The insurer had first approached the MACT seeking exoneration from liability, on the ground that the injured was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. However, the tribunal did not allow the appeal as it found that the injured person had accompanied the driver of the vehicle.
The court passed the order that the insurance company was not liable to pay the amount and the liability was upon the owner of the vehicle.