Motor Vehicles Act 1988: Insurer's Liability and Compensation Limits

Nature and
Extent of
Insurer’s
Liability under
the Motor
Vehicles’ Act,
1988
Law of Torts –
LL.B, Sem I
Mohith S
19-10-2018
Table of Contents
I. Introduction............................................................................................................................2
II. Relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988 ....................................................3
III. Nature of Liability under the Act .......................................................................................7
IV. Extent of Insurer’s Liability to the Insured & 3rd parties................................................9
V. Amendments in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017.....................................10
VI. Conclusion............................................................................................................................12
VII. Bibliography.........................................................................................................................13

of 13
I. Introduction
Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988 (referred to as MV Act hereafter) deals with
the ‘Liability without fault in certain cases’ as elaborated below:
2. According to Section 140(1) of the Act, where death or permanent disablement of any
person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle(s), the owner(s)
shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death (Rs. 50,000/-)
or disablement(Rs. 25,000/-).
3. In any claim for the aforesaid compensation, the claimant shall not be required to plead
and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been
made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner(s) of the vehicle(s) concerned
or of any other person.
4. Further, such claim for compensation shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act,
neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim
has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or
permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility
for such death or permanent disablement.
5. Compensation awarded under this section does not barred the victim to claim
compensation under any other law being in force (except Section 163A of the Act itself), though
the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced by the
amount of compensation payable under no fault liability under this section.
6. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Mehebubanbibi [2003 (2) TAC 639 (Guj.) DB] case the
deceased was deputed by his employer to carry a damaged transformer in a tractor. The tractor
fell in to a ditch. The deceased was pressed under the damaged transformer, sustained injuries
and died in hospital. Death of the deceased had arisen out of and in course of his employment. It
was held that the heirs of deceased in such case could claim compensation both under the Motor
Vehicles Act for negligence of the driver of the tractor and also under Workmen’s Compensation
Act, 1923 for death occurring out of and in the course of employment.
7. Section 142 of the Act defines ‘permanent disablement’ to have manifested itself if such
person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving :-
(a) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation
of any member or joint; or
(b) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any members or joint; or
(c) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
8. Chapter XI of the Act provides for ‘Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party
risks’ and Section 146 in particular creates a legal necessity for insurance against third party risk.
The pro-victim nature of the Act has increased the demand for third party insurance because the
public know that in the event of occurrence of an accident if they cause an injury or cause
damage to property, they shall be liable to pay damages to the affected party. Due to increased
awareness, vehicle owners opt for insurance so that their insurance company can cover these
damages.

of 13
II. Relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988
9. Section 145 defines the following words and expressions used in the Chapter XI:
(a) “authorised insurer” means an insurer for the time being carrying on general
insurance business in India under the General Insurance Business
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and any Government insurance fund authorised to do
general insurance business under that Act,
(b) “certificate of insurance” means a certificate issued by an authorised insurer in
pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 147 and includes a cover note
(c) “liability”, wherever used in relation to the death of or bodily injury to any
person, includes liability in respect thereof under section 140;
(d) “policy of insurance” includes “certificate of insurance”;
(e) “property” includes goods carried in the motor vehicle, roads, bridges,
culverts, causeways, trees, posts and mile-stones; Goods as defined in Section 2
(13) of the Act includes livestock and anything carried by a vehicle except living
persons.
(f) “reciprocating country” means any such country as may on the basis of
reciprocity be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette to be a
reciprocating country for the purposes of this Chapter;
(g) “third party” includes the Government.
10. Section 146 elaborates the necessity for insurance against third party risk. According to
this section,
“No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a
public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person,
as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter [Provided that
in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a
policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991)].”
Exceptions:-
(i) A person driving a vehicle as a paid employee, unless he knows or has reason to
believe that there is no such policy in force;
(ii) Vehicles owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for
Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise;
(iii) any local authority;
(iv) any State transport undertaking.
With reference to Central/State/Local/Transport authorities, the exception is valid only if a fund
has been established and is maintained by that authority for meeting any liability arising out of
the use of any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in its employment
may incur to third parties.

of 13
11. Section 147 lays down the requirements of the policies and the limit of liability in respect
of passengers and persons other than passengers in relation to passenger vehicles and goods
carriages.
The policy of insurance must be a policy which –
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in
sub – section (2) –
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or
bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised
representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party#
caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place ;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service
vehicle* caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
Exception: A policy shall not be required to cover:
(i) any contractual liability or
(ii) in respect of the death or bodily injury, arising out of and in the course of this
employment (except liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) of the
employee of a person insured by the policy who is:
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or
in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle.
Limits of Liability: A policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any
accident, up to the following limits, namely :-
(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred.
(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six
thousand.
(*) – According to Section 2(35) of the Act, a “public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers
for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage
(#) - The death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out
of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public
place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.
12. In New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [ (2000) 1 SCC 237] it was held that under
sub-section (2), there is no upper limitation for the insurer regarding the amount of compensation
awarded in respect of death or bodily injury of a victim of the accident. It is, therefore, apparent
that the limit contained in the old Act (1939) has been removed and the policy should insure the
liability incurred and cover injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised
representative carried in the vehicle.

of 13
13. Section 149 lays down that it is the duty of the insurers to satisfy judgements against
persons insured in respect of third party risk. It also lists the grounds of defence available to
insurer (after receiving notice from the Tribunal and being made a party thereto):
(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the
following conditions, namely :-
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle –
(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a
vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or
(b) for organised racing and speed testing, or
(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the
vehicle is a transport vehicle, or
(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or
(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly
licenced, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence
during the period of disqualification; or
(iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil
war, riot or civil commotion;
(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a
material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular *.
14. In recent times, the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Motor Vehicle
Act has held that even if the defence has been pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company,
they are not absolve from liability to make payment to the third party but can receive such
amount from the owner insured. The courts one after one have held that the burden of proving
availability of defence is on Insurer and Insurance Company has not only to lead evidence as to
breach of condition of policy or violation of provisions of Section 149(2) but has to prove also that
such act happens with the connivance or knowledge of the owner.
15. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bodali Bai [2009 ACJ 2213 (Chhat.).] where the
owner had permitted the truck to be used for taking a dead body for cremation and on return
journey the driver allowed two passengers, then on death of those passengers as truck had
dashed against a bridge, the insurer is not liable because the deceased were gratuitous
passengers, but the owner was held vicariously liable. A Division Bench of Supreme Court has
held that Insurance Company is liable for a passenger in goods vehicle. In number of other cases
this judgment has been reiterated with a direction that the Insurance Company shall first make
payment of the compensation to the claimant and then recover it from the owner.
(*) - Section 149(6): Material fact or particular means a fact or particular of such a nature as to influence the
judgement of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium
and on what conditions.

of 13
16. Section 161 provides for framing of a scheme by the Central Government for the payment
of compensation in “hit and run” cases. It also lays down the amount of compensation in respect
of the death and also in respect of grievous hurt as follows:
(a) in respect of the death of any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum of
[twenty-five thousand rupees];
(b) in respect of grievous hurt to any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed
sum of [twelve thousand and five hundred rupees].
17. Section 163 – A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula
basis. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or
instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable
to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle
compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning
and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or
establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to
any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other
person.
As per Section 163B, where a person is entitled to claim compensation under section 140 and
section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both.
18. In Ram Singh v. Anil [2009 ACJ 73 (MP) DB] it was held by the High Court that when
occurrence of accident is proved to have arisen out of use of Motor Vehicle, it is not necessary to
plead or prove negligence of driver of vehicle under Section 163A.
19. In National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. J.N. Dhabi [AIR 1997 SC 2147], an expired insurance
policy was renewed at 4.00 pm on 25.10.1983. The vehicle had met with an accident at 11.14 am
on the same day. As the accident occurred before the renewal of the policy, the Supreme Court
held that the insurance company could not be made liable for the said accident.
20. A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the
persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the
Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the Tribunal under section 158(6) of the
Act) as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act. The insurer is not a
respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act has to be sent to it.

of 13
III. Nature of Liability under the Act
21. Since the MV Act provides for compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks,
in an application of the principle of vicarious liability, the injured person or legal heirs of the
deceased can claim compensation either from:
(i) The owner of the vehicle
(ii) The driver of the vehicle
(iii) From the Insurance company; or
(iv) From them jointly
22. It is assumed that if provisions, in form of insurance, are made in advance by a car owner
for the injuries he may cause to a third party then the likelihood of claimant recovering the
needed damages is higher. It has been held that the owner will be liable for the negligent actions
of the persons who he allows to drive his car.
23. The claims for compensation arising from liability to pay compensation provided for in
the MV Act can be classified as follows:
(i) Claim for compensation under Section 140 on the principle of ‘no fault’
(ii) Claim for compensation under Section 163A on the principle of ‘no fault’ based on
structured formula as per Schedule 2 of the Act
(iii) Claim for compensation on the basis of rash and negligent driving or principle of
‘fault’ under Section 166 of the Act
No fault/Strict/Absolute liability
24. Sections 140 and 163A of the Act, provides for payment of compensation on the principle
of no fault liability i.e. without any fault to be established on the part of any party in cases of case
of death or permanent disablement. Thus the defendant cannot reduce his liability by pleading
contributory negligence of the plaintiff etc and escape liability.
25. The principle of no fault liability was first established in Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [1987 AIR 1690] in which the Supreme Court held that
“Where a pedestrian, without negligence on his part, is injured or killed by a motorist whether
negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be entitled to
recover damages if the principle of social justice should have any meaning at all.”
Amendment of Second Schedule under Section 163A:
26. The Second Schedule earlier provided for a structured formula based upon age-range of
victim and his annual income. The minimum compensation was fixed at Rs. 50,000. Expenses
such as funeral expenses, loss of consortium for spouse and loss of estate etc were factored in by
Courts. However, recently, the Schedule has been modified as follows:

of 13
Fault liability
27. Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 certain duties of care to be observed by the drivers of
motor vehicles are established. These are:
• Duty to obey Driving regulations
• Duty to obey traffic signs
• Duty to drive vehicles with left hand control
• Duty to observe safety measures for drivers and pillion riders
• Duty to produce license and certificate or registration
• Duty of driver to stop in certain cases
• Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person
• Duty to allow inspection of vehicle involved in accident.
28. If any of the above mentioned duties are breached and claimant suffers damages as a
result of that breach than the case can be qualified as one involving negligence or fault liability.
Preferment of claim under Section 166 of the Act is not confined by nature of injury suffered and
the amount of damages is adjudicated on the basis of general law of torts and which appears to
be ‘just’. Remedy can be claimed either under Section 163A or Section 166 but not both.
29. In Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan [2009 13 SCC 422], the Apex Court
reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the
factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The
relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below:

of 13
“The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be
compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust
enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for
example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.”
In this case it was also held that remedy under S. 163A is not in addition to remedy under S. 166
but an alternative course to S. 166; claimants have to elect one of the said two remedies, but not
both.
30. In Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr [2009 S.C.C. 121.], it was held that in a claim for
compensation for death made under Section 166 of the Act, the Second Schedule to the Act (i.e.
structured formula under Section 163A) has no application in calculating the amount of
compensation. The Court evolved a distinct formula with multiplier in this case.
31. For filing a claim under Section 166, it is necessary for the claimant to prove negligence on
the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal may sometimes use the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitor (i.e. the thing speaks for itself) to relieve the claimant from liability to prove
negligence of respondent driver. Respondent can raise the defence of contributory negligence of
the claimant.
IV. Extent of Insurer’s Liability to the Insured & 3rd
parties
32. Section 150 provides that in the event of the insured becoming insolvent any liability
incurred by the insured person and his rights against the insurer will be transferred to and vest in
the third party to whom the liability was so incurred.
33. Section 152 lays down that any settlement made by the insurer in respect of any claim
which may be made by the third party will not be valid unless the third party is a party to the
claim
34. Section 154 provides that the insolvency of the insured will not affect the liability of the
insured or affect the claims of third parties or the rights against the insurer.
35. Section 155 makes it clear that in the event of the death of the insured after the happening
of an accident in which his motor vehicle was involved, the right of third parties will not be
barred against the insured or his excise.
36. Section 157 lays down that when the certificate of registration is transferred from one
person to another, then the policy of insurance in respect of that vehicle is also deemed to have
been transferred to that other person from the date on which the ownership of the motor vehicle
stands transferred. The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in
the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes.
37. In G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [AIR 1999 SC 1398] it was held by the
Supreme Court that compensation to the victim cannot be denied merely on the ground that the
policy had not been transferred.

of 13
38. In case, the vehicle is not insured against third party risks, compensation can be claimed
from either the owner or from the driver or from them jointly.
39. The proviso for total limitation period of 12 months was omitted by the 1994 amendment
of the Act. Under Section 174, the amount awarded can be recovered from insurer as arrears of
land revenue by the District Collector.
Liability of Insurer in cases of gratuitous passengers
40. A gratuitous passenger cannot seek compensation from the insurance company and it is
the owner/driver of the vehicle, who are liable to pay compensation. However, the insurance
company be directed to pay and recover the amount from the owner.
41. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati [(2007) 9 S.C.C. 486.] the Supreme Court
further held that “the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle
to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no
liability therefore.”
42. In K. Gopal Krishnan v. Sankara Narayanan [AIR 1968 Mad 438], the Madras High
Court observed that a scooter-owner is not bound to take out a third party risk policy to cover the
claim of the pillion rider that is carried gratuitously. If he is injured, the insurance company
would not be liable unless policy covering such risk is obtained by the scooter-owner.
43. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sudhakaran K.V. [(2008) 7 SCC 428] the Supreme
Court, after discussing its earlier judgments , summarised the law regarding the pillion rider on a
two wheeler as under: “25. The law which emerges from the said decisions, is: (i) the liability of
the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor
vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the legal
obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the
owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a
third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on
the part of the driver of another vehicle.”
V. Amendments in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill,
2017
44. A proposal of 68 amendments to 233 sections and the insertion of 28 new sections in the
1988 Motor Vehicles Act were undertaken in the Bill. Chapter X (‘Liability without fault in
certain cases’) in the principal Act, has been omitted. Chapter XI has been extensively modified:
Compensation and Insurance:
The Bill has widely modified the compensation and insurance in cases under motor vehicle
accidents:
Section 161 - Hit and Run: Under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, compensation for hit and run
victims comes from a Solatium Fund. The compensation in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill
2016 has extended to Rs 50,000 for grievous injury and Rs 2 lakh or more as instructed by the
Central Government.

of 13
45. Compulsory Third Party Insurance for all Motor Vehicles: Under the Act, the liability of
the third party insurer for motor vehicle accidents is unlimited. Under Section 164, compensation
enhanced to a sum of Five lakh rupees in case of death or of Two and a half lakh rupees in case of
grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, on a no-fault basis. Second schedule of the principle
Act has been omitted.
46. Interim Relief for Claimants through Third Party insurance: The Bill allows the Central
Government to make a scheme for providing interim relief to claimants seeking compensation
under third party insurance for motor vehicle accidents. Under Section 149 of the Bill, the
compensation given to the victim by the Insurance company would be settled before the Claims
Tribunal within thirty days from the date of accident. The Claims Tribunal shall make a record of
such settlement, and such claim shall be deemed to be settled by consent. Under Section 164 of
the Bill, compensation on a no fault basis would be provided and this compensation is stop-gap
arrangement. The victim has the option to take the compensation and settle or take the
compensation and continue his claim in the Motor Vehicle’s Tribunal under Section 166.
47. Motor Vehicle Accident Fund: The Bill under Section 164B, the Bill emphasizes on
constituting a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund by the Central Government. The Fund will provide
compulsory insurance cover to all road users in India. The Fund will be credited through
payment of nature notified and approved by the Central Government, a grant or loan made by
the Central Government or balance of Solatium Funds or any other source prescribed the Central
Government.
The Bill clearly specifies the utility of the fund covering:
i. Treatment of persons injured in road accidents in accordance with the ‘Golden Hour’
schemes,
ii. Compensation to representatives of a person who died in hit and run accident in
accordance with schemes framed by Central Government.
iii. Compensation to persons as prescribed by the Central Government, and
iv. Compensation to a person grievously hurt in a hit and run accidents in accordance with
schemes framed by central government.
48. Under Section 166, the following proviso has been inserted: “(3) No application for
compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the
accident.”

of 13
VI. Conclusion
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is more of a welfare legislation in that it seeks to provide
compensation to motor vehicle accident victims rather than to penalize those accused of causing
such accidents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held number of times that this is a welfare
legislation and the interpretation of provision of this law is required to be made so as to help the
victim.
In this process, the Supreme Court has passed various judgments in the recent past, which have
restricted the statutory defences to the Insurance Company to a greater extent as law relating to
burden of proof have been totally changed. The Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability
except on the grounds, which have been provided in Section 149(2) and not any other ground. In
recent times, Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act has held
that even if the defence has been pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company, they are not
absolved from liability to make payment to the third party but can receive such amount from the
owner insured. If knowledge or connivance has not been proved, the Insurance Company shall
remain liable even if defence is available.
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill 2017 has brought far reaching changes in the law:
- Chapter X has been omitted.
- Parallel provisions under Section 140 and Section 163A of the Act, both of which provided
for payment of compensation on no fault basis on fixed amount and on structured
formula basis respectively, have been subsumed under Section 164 of the Bill with
enhanced amounts of Five lakh rupees in case of death or of Two and a half lakh rupees in
case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim.
- It is notable that the term permanent disablement has been done away with and ‘grievous
hurt’ as defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The option of claimant to settle with Insurer within 30 days and payment of interim relief by
insurer may further reduce litigation under these provisions.

of 13
VII. Bibliography
1) Rosedar S.R.A (2016) – Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act, Lexis Nexis
2) “Rethink amendments to Motor Vehicles Bill, Centre tells State”- The Hindu, 27
September 2018; Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/states/rethink-
amendments-to-motor-vehicles-bill-centre-tells-state/article25052524.ece
3) “The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: History, Object, Scope and Salient Features” – Retrieved
from http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7253/10/ 10_chapter%202.pdf
4) “THE MOTOR VEHICLES (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2017” – As passed by Lok Sabha on
10.04.2017, Bill No. 214-C of 2016; Retrieved from www.loksabha.nic.in
http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/PassedLoksabha/214C_2016_LS_Eng.pdf
5) “THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (59 of 1988)” - Retrieved from
http://www.tn.gov.in /sta/Mvact1988.pdf
6) “149th Report on Removing certain deficiencies in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of
1988)” – Law Commission of India (1994); Retrieved from
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/ 101-169/report149.pdf
7) “Key Provisions in Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017” – Save Life Foundation;
Retrieved from https://savelifefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MVA-
Bill-2017-Analysis.pdf
8) “The Second Schedule (see Section 163A) Schedule for Compensation for Third Party
Fatal Accidents/Injury Cases Claims”; Retrieved from
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/ 2018/185751.pdf
9) Justice Deepak Gupta - “Award of Compensation under The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Guiding Principles For Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals”; Himachal Pradesh Judicial
Academy; Retrieved from http://hpsja.nic.in/jaarticle.pdf
* * * *

Motor Vehicles Act 1988: Insurer's Liability and Compensation Limits

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Motor Vehicles Act 1988: Insurer's Liability and Compensation Limits

Similar to Motor Vehicles Act 1988: Insurer's Liability and Compensation Limits (20)

More from Mohith Sanjay

More from Mohith Sanjay (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Motor Vehicles Act 1988: Insurer's Liability and Compensation Limits