Karnataka high court: Motor accident tribunal canexamine personal cover claims

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has held that a motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) is not stripped of jurisdiction to examine claims relating to personal accident (PA) cover under a motor insurance policy.Justice K Manmadha Rao made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by The New India Assurance Company, which had challenged an order of the MACT in Belagavi refusing to reject a claim petition at the preliminary stage.
The case arose from an accident that occurred on April 8, 2023, when Umar Farooque, a tailor and resident of Belagavi, suffered serious injuries after his motorcycle allegedly skidded off the road. He filed a claim petition stating that he had purchased a package motor insurance policy that included an additional premium for a personal accident cover of Rs 15 lakh as the owner-driver.The insurance company sought a dismissal of the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the provision enables adjudication only of third-party claims before the tribunal. According to the insurer, a personal accident claim by the insured is a matter of private contract between the parties and falls outside the jurisdiction of the MACT.After the tribunal rejected its preliminary application, the insurer approached HC.Justice Rao referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in National Insurance Company vs Ashalata Bhowmik. In that case, the apex court had clarified that while a claim under Section 166 may not lie against an insurer for the insured's own negligence, the contractual benefit of a personal accident cover remains enforceable in accordance with the policy terms.The high court observed that the tribunal is empowered to mould the relief in line with the insurance contract and determine the extent of liability after a full-fledged trial.The judge noted that the insurer would have a full opportunity before the tribunal to contest the claim, prove the policy terms and raise all available legal defences. Interfering at this preliminary stage, the court said, would effectively shut out a bona fide claim without adjudication on the merits.