Page 56 - The Insurance Times September 2025

treated as an indoor patient from Sept 11 to 14, 2024 for tractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance
viral pneumonia. This was further verified by a hospital visit policy".
and examination of records. It appears the discrepancy in The insurance company, however, took the stand that the
the Google Timeline was wrongly cited. We are convinced petitioner, having succeeded to the estate of the owner of
that the insurance company failed to take the doctor's cer- the vehicle who died in the accident cannot at the same
tificate into account, likely with the intent to reject the time be the person who has the liability and is the recipient
claim." of the compensation.
Speaking to TOI, advocate Desai said, "We've learned that "It would override the provisions under sections 147 & 149
investigators of some insurance companies mislead patients along with the other provisions of the Act and the law regu-
and gain access to their phones to stealthily review their lating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the
Google Timeline data. This act is illegal, as they have no claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum. This
authority to check a person's private details. It's also pos- according to us is the intention of incorporating the non-
sible the patient had their 'location' or 'data' settings turned obstante clause under Section 163A providing for no-fault
off, or faced network issues. Unless Google officials person- liability claims, the compensation for which is restricted to
ally verify the data in court, the Timeline holds no legal the structured formula under the IInd Schedule.
validity."
Person tailgating liable for accident if it
SC: In motor accidents, claims not re-
occurs, says SC
stricted to third party Apply emergency brakes or trail a moving vehicle too closely
Motor vehicle insurance protects a policyholder against at your own risk as Supreme Court has said that using brakes
claims made by a third party for damages due to the all of a sudden in the middle of a road or not maintaining
policyholder's actions, but what about the claim against sufficient distance from a running vehicle make a person li-
injury/death of the policyholder themselves in a road acci- able for an accident if it occurs.
dent? Holding that family members of such a policyholder
While adjudicating a motor accident claim in an accident
can also claim compensation, Supreme Court has referred involving a bike, a car and a bus in which bike rider collided
the issue to a larger bench since there are contradictory with the four wheeler and was hit by a truck after falling
verdicts of the apex court on the matter.
down resulting in 100% physical disability, a bench of Jus-
While hearing the compensation plea of a minor girl who tices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar found fault with
lost both her parents in a car accident in which her father all three who were driving vehicles. The court said that the
was on the driving seat, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia car driver was at fault for suddenly applying brakes in the
and K Vinod Chandran said section 163A of the Motor Ve- middle of the road and the biker also committed a mistake
hicles Act could be invoked for such a claim, as it is a special as he was not maintaining safe distance from the car and
provision which overrides not only all the provisions of the also the bus driver whose negligence resulted in grievous
Act but also any other law in force for the time being. injury and led to the amputation of a leg of the biker's.
In this case, the minor was awarded compensation by the The court rejected the plea of the car insurer which con-
insurance company for the death of her mother but not for tended that the biker had hit the moving car from behind
her father as he was himself the insured party. and the car driver was not liable. The car owner had said
The bench said: "... a claim under section 163A, as per the that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was
words employed in the provision, according to us covers pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation at that time, a
every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; with- justification which was rejected by the court.
out any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death Examining the role of all three drivers, the court said that
or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor the biker, who was an engineering student and lost his one
accident. This would also take in the liability with respect leg, was also liable for contributory negligence but only to
to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver are
shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under section 163A liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respec-
dehors the statutory liability under section 147 or the con- tively.

The Insurance Times September 2025 51