help me out its urgenttt

[Wiseshankar628]

W

Wiseshankar628
PARTICIPANT
March 19, 2025 at 10:02 am

so person A had died in an car accident due to B’s fault, A’s insurance provider is tata(comprehensive policy) and b’s insurance provider is bajaj. now a case is filed against b, bajaj and tata under MACT. TATA has filed that their name should be removed from the list of respondents but we dont want to do that, is there any landmark case or judgement which i can refer to support this.

Share

[Ananyaguru69]

A

Ananyaguru69
PARTICIPANT
March 19, 2025 at 6:58 pm

But why do u want TATA to be there
The liability is on the bajaj to provide you with the compensation under MACY

Share

[Pritiknight627]

P

Pritiknight627
PARTICIPANT
March 20, 2025 at 12:43 am

The only the accused’s insurance company is liable to pay why the deceased party’s insurance company have to be there? They have nothing to do with it. Unless it’s some kind of money milking scheme?

Share

[Sapanmaster587]

S

Sapanmaster587
PARTICIPANT
March 20, 2025 at 4:09 pm

Since the accident was due to B’s fault, B’s insurer (Bajaj) is primarily liable to compensate under third-party insurance. Tata, as A’s insurer, has issued a comprehensive policy, which typically covers damage to A’s vehicle and not third-party liability for A’s own accident.
Tata’s argument is legally valid, and courts have allowed removal in similar cases. If you oppose their removal, you must argue that Tata’s policy had some personal accident cover or a clause covering such claims.

Read them once, might help:

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors (2008)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sinitha & Ors (2011)

Share

[Wiseshankar628]

W

Wiseshankar628
OP
March 20, 2025 at 4:15 pm

Thanks

Share

[Author]

Posts