Mumbai: The bursting of a tyre leading to an accident is not an “act of God” but “human negligence”, observed the Bombay High Court.
The dictionary meaning of “act of God” is “an instance of uncontrollable natural forces in operation” and refers to a severe, unanticipated natural event for which no human is responsible, noted Justice SG Dige, while hearing an appeal filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd, which had claimed that the accident was an act of God and thus it was not liable to pay compensation.
Driver has to check the condition of tyre before travelling
“The bursting of a tyre cannot be termed as an act of God. It is an act of human negligence. There are various reasons for the bursting of a tyre, including under-inflated or over-inflated tyres, second-hand tyres, and temperature. The driver or owner of the vehicle has to check the condition of tyre before travelling,” observed the judge, upholding the 2017 order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which directed the insurance company to pay compensation of ₹2.25 lakh to the deceased’s family.
The MACT order had come on a plea by the family of the deceased, including the widow, minor child, and parents.
Justice Dige’s remarks came on the appeal of the insurance company challenging the MACT order. The company claimed that the car in which the deceased was travelling along with a friend, toppled because a tyre had burst. The friend, who was driving the car, survived the accident. Hence, the insurance company claimed that the tyre burst was an act of God and it is thus not liable to pay the compensation.
"I do not find merit in the contention..," says the judge
The high court, however, noted that the company had failed to examine the car’s driver to prove the reason for the tyre burst. “So, merely stating that the tyre burst is an ‘act of God’ cannot be a ground to exonerate the appellant/insurance company from paying compensation. I do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no negligence of the driver of the car in the accident,” the court stated.
The high court also dismissed the insurance company’s contention that the compensation awarded was high as the tribunal had taken into account various heads as income of the deceased and this should not have been done.
However, the high court citied a Supreme Court judgement that said each claimant is entitled to ₹40,000 as consortium amount, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, and ₹15,000 for loss of the estate. As there are four claimants in the present case, the consortium amount comes to ₹1.6 lakh, while the total for funeral expenses and loss of estate comes to ₹30,000, it pointed out. Thus, the total amount comes to ₹1.9 lakh, it said and observed that the tribunal had awarded an excess of ₹35,000 excess.
It also allowed the insurance company to withdraw ₹35,000 along with the accrued interest on it.
